Gun Control - Now Discussing Tucson Shooting

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Lowbacca_1977, Dec 3, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    I'm sorry, but under the US Constitution, the people who have something to justify are those who are arguing to infringe the right to keep and bear arms. Under the Constitution, as indicated by the Supreme Court in both Heller v. DC and McDonald v. Chicago, I have a clear right to self defense. I cannot be denied that right without due process of the law.

    However, if you want to look at data, look at the homicide rates in places like Chicago, DC, and New York, as compared to neighboring localities that don't have bans. When you cross the Potomac River from Virginia into DC, even though the demographics remain similar the crime rate skyrockets. That same crime rate remains similar when moving from DC into neighboring counties of Maryland (that also have restrictive firearms laws). You get similar effects near Chicago, New York, and other cities in the US that prohibit or severely restrict firearms ownership.

    Prohibition simply doesn't work, because it only really hinders the law abiding. If we banned guns today, only the law abiding citizens would turn them in. The criminals would just keep them, and we would have an even greater force disparity between the criminals and law abiding citizens.

    And you can't really compare Europe and the US because of some severely fundamental cultural differences. Europe has a long history of classism and statism, where people have a history of submitting to authority. The same is not true of the US. The US tended to get many of the people who were anti-authoritarian to settle there, and we are still as a nation closer to our frontier roots than the vast majority of Europe is.

    The problem is that you can make the same arguments about any other right. Everyone would be pleased if we could keep Nazis, or Klansmen from spewing hate-filled propaganda, or keep hardcore pornographers from peddling filth, or [insert other offensive speech here], but the only way to limit such things is to infringe everyone's rights.

    Bad things happen, and we can't stop them all. It's the price that we pay to have a free society, that even "bad people" get freedom until they do something to justify losing it.

  2. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    I agree with all this: half of the legislation and policy that came out of 9/11 seems to me an almost pathological, irrational response to people's fears of terrorism: the Patriot Act, legalizing torture and indefinite imprisonment without due process, invasive patdowns or body scans at airports without the slightest basis for suspicion, and so on.

    I'm just curious about what the threshold is for an emotional response that leads to political activism. Is there a massive emotional outpouring of widespread public interest in gun control legislation only when a Republican president gets shot? Or is it a certain number of teenagers? Or are people now so desensitized by the periodic news of mass shootings by crazy and irate armed citizens that it doesn't spark the kind of emotional response that can motivate people to support legislative change?

    Not that it should, just that it's interesting. We're all aware that the next episode of someone "going postal" is only months away. We're jaded, the way people in Chicago tune out the constant background noise of homicides on hot summer weekends.
  3. LtNOWIS Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2005
    star 4
    If half a dozen students get gunned down, I don't think it really registers with most people. Of course, neither does 6 people getting killed when a van runs off the road, or 20 people being killed in Pakistan or Africa.

    Anyways, it's not surprising that there are already calls for gun control in the media, and they are quite ignorant of the facts. That New York Times editorial claims that Glocks are unsuited for personal protection, and are fundamentally different than "regular pistols." That's a laughably false notion; Glocks are widely used by police officers and civilians precisely because they're great for personal protection. Even Congresswoman Giffords has one! They're not substantively different than handguns made a hundred years ago. Even 30 round magazines were available in 1908. And they were not, as the article claims, unavailable during the 1994 to 2004 Assault Weapons Ban, since you could buy pre-ban magazines.

    It's hard to take gun control proponents seriously when they are unwilling or unable to get basic facts correct.

    Edit: And then there's the quote that "If this was the modern equivalent of what Sirhan Sirhan used to shoot Robert Kennedy or Arthur Bremer used to shoot George Wallace, you?d be talking about one or two victims." Never mind the fact that Sirhan shot six people and Bremer shot four people. And both Kennedy and Wallace were shot several times, not once in the head.

    So yeah, the modern gun control movement seems wedded to the entirely specious idea that "new" guns are worse and deadlier than the old guns people traditionally had.
  4. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9
    Yeah, when you can buy most of the things you need for a massive truck bomb with a couple trips to wal-mart and home depot, gun control is stupid.
  5. CloneUncleOwen Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2009
    star 4
    That long?
  6. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    You could defend yourself with a musket....yet you couldn't shoot 6 people within the space of a minute without having to stop and reload. Muskets people. That is the only sensible compromise. Not as sexy as a Glock but still constitutionally sound.
  7. LtNOWIS Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2005
    star 4
    I think gun control advocates could make a good case for banning high capacity magazines for handguns. But the "Glocks are worse than other pistols" lunacy utterly discredits them. There are very few gun control advocates with any credibility on this issue, and that has been clear for years now.
  8. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    I'm not in the modern gun control movement, I'm a chip off the old Freudian phallic symbol movement.

    Is anti-authoritarianism hereditary?
  9. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9
    I'd say to a degree it is; people tend to get alot of their habits from their parents.
  10. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    The real question winds up being, what do you consider to be a high-capacity magazine? Some people claim anything over 10 rounds, but by that criteria the military only issues "high capacity" handguns (the standard-issue Beretta M9 has a default 15-round magazine). The police in my area carry Glock 17s, and those usually have 17+ rounds. The FBI issues either a Glock 22 or 23, which have magazines of 15 or 13 rounds, with options for a Glock 17 or 19 if the agent has trouble with the recoil. They also issue Sig 226 which offers magazines ranging from 12 to 20 rounds (depending on caliber and other specifics).

    Sure, I wouldn't be that affected by a ban on "high capacity" magazines over 10 rounds (as I'm a Colt 1911 fan, and more than 7-8 rounds in the magazine make it look ridiculous), but that doesn't mean that such a threshold is reasonable.

    It's definitely cultural in the US (which is why I specified cultural differences between Europe and the US in my post).

    Kimball Kinnison
  11. CT-867-5309 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jan 5, 2011
    star 5
    Why is 10 round maximum unreasonable? Why would you need more than that?

    Obviously a ban on high capacity magazines wouldn't apply to military or police.
  12. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    There are multiple reasons to have magazines larger than 10 rounds.

    The biggest reason for me, personally, would be cost. When I go to the range, it can cost me $15-20/hour just for the time I spend there (not counting ammo). With a 10-round limit on my magazine, it means that I have to stop to reload the magazines more often, which greatly reduces the time that I can spend actually practicing my shooting skills.

    Additionally, magazines are more complicated than you might think They are designed to apply specific amounts of tension to allow a round to feed properly into the firearm. When you start adjusting the capacity of a magazine design (either adding or removing capacity), it requires a lot of adjustment to make sure that the rounds will still feed reliably. For example, you can buy a 25-round drum magazine for my Colt 1911 .45 ACP pistol. However, in addition to making the gun look absurd, it is notorious for causing feed problems.

    Similarly, I have a smaller "Officer's model" 1911 that I use for everyday carry. Because of its smaller size, it uses a different magazine than my larger 1911 (although the larger magazines will fit). Because of the smaller capacity, I will occasionally get feed issues on the first and last rounds in the magazine. This is largely because of the tension issues caused by designing a smaller version of the same magazine.

    Guns are precision instruments that work at extremely tight tolerances. When you start messing with those designs without a lot of careful work, bad things can happen.

    Finally, there are recorded instances of attackers requiring 30+ rounds before they stop. Often, these sort of instances occur when the attacker is high on some type of drugs, but that is largely irrelevant. When you are being attacked, you are trained to shoot until the threat is stopped or until you run out of ammo. I would personally prefer to be able to do the former, rather than the latter.

    You say that as though it should be obvious, but why should I be limited to a smaller magazine than what the police carry for their own protection? If 10 rounds is reasonable for a civilian, then why not for the police?

    For one thing, it is often advised by self defense experts that if you carry for personal defense, you carry a similar firearm and round to what the police in your area carry. Why? Because if you ever have to use it defensively, one of the common accusations made against a self-defense shooter is that they were carrying a round or gun meant to be "more lethal". A good defense to that is to have a police officer testify to what they carry and how it is an effective firearm/round for stopping an attacker, because police departments usually perform studies and reviews before adopting a firearm/round combination.

    Additionally, by US law, all males between the ages of 17 and 45 (except those in military service) are members of the militia of the United States, and can be called upon for military service in a time of need. (This is divided into the organized militia, such as the National Guard and the Reserves, and the unorganized militia, which includes everyone else.) Historically, members of the militia were expected to have familiarity with the arms that the military uses, and if possible provide their own personal arms (such as a musket, rifle, or pistol). As I am a male citizen between the ages of 17 and 45 and therefore by law a member of the militia of the United States, why should I be prohibited from owning and/or training with the equipment that I could be called upon to use?

    Most of all, it is important to remember that the burden of proof is not on those who want to own a 15+ round magazine. All the justification that they need is that it is permitted by the Constitution. The burden lies with those who would deny what the Supreme Court has clearly identified as
  13. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    Carried over from the core assassination thread -- I can re-post the arguments there if requested:


    I can tell you exactly how many lives would be saved by me not owning guns: zero. My guns aren't a threat to anyone, unless they become an imminent threat of extreme harm to me or my family.

    And how am I to write a law that gives special privileges to you on account of that? Presuming of course, that this is an indefinate statement and that factors you cannot control such as any number of mental-debilitating diseases take effect (or plain old senility if we look far enough into the future).

    Moreover, you completely miss the other point of what I was saying. I don't care if overall more lives are saved by banning guns. I care about whether my family is safe, and I'm not willing to sacrifice their well being for anyone else. Is that selfish? Sure. But I have a very strong responsibility to take care of my family, and I will do whatever I have to do to protect them.

    Well then what's this about Mr. Kinnison? Is it about your family being protected or about you doing the protecting?

    You ask if this is selfish -- but of course the sentiment is not QUITE on the level: you pose this as something you can say with a straight face to your family and yourself and friends: "Yes I am selfish, but if you read between the lines I am NOT selfish anymore than anyone else would be". Again, the monkeysphere.

    Well look, if the scenarios from the "Fallout" games happen, you're more than entitled to that view. Frankly, if you move to South Africa, I'd think you're more than entitled to that view.

    What I'm saying is that... what if the very point about not caring about whose lives you (non-specific) owning a gun might cause is part of the very contributing reasson that you need one.

    If you have high, high confidence that applying a set of rules for gun ownership will not cause one more net death than a gun ban -- and feel free to factor in the criminal element into that as well -- then my points are moot. But if there's an inherent risk involved in that as opposed to you (non-specific) just not owning a gun, I don't see what the problem is here.

    If we, on the other hand, can say that 1 less person would die from an outright gun ban... well, what if that was your child? What if a gun ban meant that in 16 years a gunfight does not break out in front of her local mall and a stray bullet does not strike and kill her? If you supported the gun ban, have you protected her any less? Yes, you'll never know the effect you had, unlike the direct cause and effect of neutralizing a home invader... but does that really matter? Making a safer environment might be a more thankless job -- like winning a war through logistics and supply lines rather than a brilliant strategy, or convicting Al Capone for Tax Evasion rather than rackateering and murder -- but if it does the job better, I say do it and don't look back.



    There is no social responsibility to give up your own life, or the lives of your family, even if it would lead to saving multiple other lives. We don't demand that everyone be an organ donor, regardless of how many lives that would save. Similarly, there is no social responsibility for me to give up the tools that I can use to protect my family, even if doing so would save other lives.

    No, I suppose it doesn't. And in the short term who knows, maybe in America that's what's being asked. But first of all, your reasoning at least allows a viewpoint that is valid and opposing. And what's more, are you only thinking in the short term rather than the long-term? If it could be proven that an outright gun ban would result in so many less deaths per year as time went on and personal firearms slowly went out of circulation, again, have not giving up the tools to prtect your family.... protected your family? Maybe the crime situation being what it is today you won't be the young buck you are now to see it. But maybe your kids or grandkids would see it. Maybe they could walk down the street without much o
  14. CT-867-5309 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jan 5, 2011
    star 5
    I don't see this as a major concern, the increase in cost/loss of time wouldn't be that great. I think the arguments for Gun Control on both sides greatly surpass such a small inconvenience.


    Ah, a fine point, one I did not consider. Still, if civilian laws changed then gun manufacturers would change along with them.



    This is extremely unlikely.....


    Obviously the police and military have much greater needs than your average citizen.

    As for the subject of the militia, I'm not going to respond.

    You make solid points, especially on the burden of proof, I just have a different perspective.
  15. Master_SweetPea Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2002
    star 4
    1- "Unlikely" according to who? Grizzly bears make require a few extra rounds. A drug addict, high out of his mind on Oxycodone, will definitely require more shots than your average mugger. ( I am a Pharmacy Intern so this is a concern for me,This is where I work)
    There is also the power differences between rounds, a .44 magnum shot out of an 8 inch barrel could stop someone or something with a single shot compared to 10 rounds of .22lr not stopping that same person or animal, (assuming they are wearing a think leather jacket etc.)

    2-The Police are civilians and live in the same world as we do. If they have to shoot to defend themselves, their lives' are no more important than mine.

    3-Legal fact, so just ignore it? Let's look at the bigger picture, if we get rid of our giant Military and return to the Militia we won't invade foreign nations for oil, and if Paranoid Schizophrenics try to shoot 9 year old girls they will be stopped quickly by bystanders.
  16. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    I have actually taken steps to make sure that if anything like that happens to me, I can be denied access to my collection.

    The problem with your argument is that it automatically treats everyone as if they are potential criminals. Such views are inconsistent with a free society, because you can justify any number of restrictions on the fear that someone might commit a crime. After all, every criminal was once law abiding.

    The legal default should always be to assume that a person is law abiding until such time as they have indicated otherwise.

    It is my responsibility to insure that they are protected. Ultimately, that isn't something that I can pass off to anyone else.

    Let's use another example to illustrate why I am usually armed. I am responsible to help take care of my family. Because of that, I have studied first aid, including such things as CPR, the Heimlich maneuver, severe cuts, and so forth. Sure, if something happened I could just call the paramedics, but what about the time until they arrive? Even with the nearest fire station being less than a mile away, it would still take 1-3 minutes for them to get here under the best conditions. Should I not keep a thorough first aid kit at home because I can just rely on an ambulance to come? Or do I have a responsibility to keep at least the basic tools, skills, and knowledge on hand so that I can care for my family until expert knowledge can arrive? Choking, a cut, or a heart attack could easily kill someone before that ambulance arrives.

    Similarly, look at the statistics that I gave for police protection in my area. On average, under the best conditions, it is an average 3.5 minute wait for the police to arrive from the time that the dispatcher calls them. When you add in the time for me to call the police (assuming that I am able to do so), give them information on what is happening, and give the dispatcher time to call in units, you are looking at a minimum of 5 minutes, and likely much longer. Again, that's under the best conditions. If I have an obligation to help take care of my family against threats like choking or a heart attack, then don't I have a similar obligation to help take care of my family against a threat like a home invasion, or rapist, or murderer?

    I'm not saying that the police are unnecessary, or that I would never call them. What I am saying is that I cannot rely on them being there at the moment that my family needs them. I can't even rely on me being there (which is why my wife has also gotten training in self defense, and we have developed an emergency plan for our home, covering everything from fire to home invasion). But I can insure that if I am there, I can take care of them while we wait for the police to arrive.

  17. shanerjedi Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 17, 2010
    star 4
    Democrat Heath Schuyler has come out and said he's had a concealed carry permit for many years but never carried, but will from now on.

    I would expect concealed carry to grow precipitously after this tragedy.

  18. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    The problem with your argument is that it automatically treats everyone as if they are potential criminals. Such views are inconsistent with a free society, because you can justify any number of restrictions on the fear that someone might commit a crime. After all, every criminal was once law abiding.

    Well that's precisely what general security does. That's why you have a security fence, security cameras, etc. If you worked for a storage facility where top-secret documents were kept, but could somehow be assured that people would never open the red filing cabinets, why not just let anyone into the facility? Why have guards?

    What's more, isn't that precisely what you're doing? If people were not potential criminals... then why the need for the gun?

    OH... do you mean that of course there are potential criminals out there, just that not EVERYONE is a potential criminal? And how do you propose we tell the criminals from the law-abiding? Up here the big story now is about how a military Colonel with no criminal history decided, at about age 45, that he would start breaking into people's houses. Eventually he would rape and murder two women (since he surprised them in their own homes, it doesn't looks as if having a weapon on the premises would have helped matters). This is someone that previously flew as pilot for the Queen upon her royal visit.

    How are you going to identify someone like that before they strike?


    The legal default should always be to assume that a person is law abiding until such time as they have indicated otherwise.

    Yes. But I fail to see why in that assumption a person should be granted a gun. Or a tank. Or high explosives. Or a nuclear weapon. You could use all of those things in self-defense.



    It is my responsibility to insure that they are protected. Ultimately, that isn't something that I can pass off to anyone else.

    If it's your responsibility to insure that they are protected, and if it were proven that the most reliable means of doing so were precisely to hand things off to "someone else" so to speak so that your environment changed rather than your security itself improved, then I'm not seeing how you've abdicated responsibility.


    Let's use another example to illustrate why I am usually armed. I am responsible to help take care of my family. Because of that, I have studied first aid, including such things as CPR, the Heimlich maneuver, severe cuts, and so forth. Sure, if something happened I could just call the paramedics, but what about the time until they arrive? Even with the nearest fire station being less than a mile away, it would still take 1-3 minutes for them to get here under the best conditions. Should I not keep a thorough first aid kit at home because I can just rely on an ambulance to come? Or do I have a responsibility to keep at least the basic tools, skills, and knowledge on hand so that I can care for my family until expert knowledge can arrive? Choking, a cut, or a heart attack could easily kill someone before that ambulance arrives.


    Sure. However your first aid training is not such that you are dealing with a weapon that can kill someone with ease... in other words, you would probably need very specific circumstances where your first aid training would be potentially dangerous to someone else.

    Oh, there may be instances where it COULD be dangerous, given an incapacitated person and the knowledge of where to hurt them. Not really all that likely, though.



    Similarly, look at the statistics that I gave for police protection in my area. On average, under the best conditions, it is an average 3.5 minute wait for the police to arrive from the time that the dispatcher calls them. When you add in the time for me to call the police (assuming that I am able to do so), give them information on what is happening, and give the dispatcher time to call in units, you are looking at a minimum of 5 minutes, and likely much longer. Again, that's under the best conditions. If I have an obligation to help take care of my family against threats like cho
  19. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    Where I live, home invasions are so unusual as to be practically nonexistent. The most common burglary is people breaking into detached garages and stealing bicycles and any other not-so-very-valuable valuable they can find.

    I the case of my town, I'm willing to bet my life that widespread handgun ownership in the home would and maybe will now after the Heller ruling increase shootings in relationship squabbles, accidental deaths with children, and gun suicides more than it would decrease homicides resulting from people being unable to defend themselves with a handgun. In essence I do bet my life on it and the life of my family. We use common sense means of discouraging burglars - strong doors and locks and a network of neighbors who help keep watch on goings on in the block. We have an email news group and the whole block knows within minutes if a house or garage has had a break in. That has occurred a few times on the block since I've lived in my house (not to me). No one has ever been threatened by an assailant on my block in the time I've lived here.

    From a philosophical and moral standpoint of course, I would never shoot someone to prevent the theft of my bicycle or car or any other valuable that I own. And I will possibly never have the chance to shoot someone to defend my life, because I'll never own a handgun.* I'm convinced for average citizens common sense precautions and situational awareness is superior to gun ownership for avoiding being victimized by a crime in more than 99% of all cases. But of course the real stats tend to get obscured behind all the politicization of basic facts as happens with climate change.

    *The caveat here of course being the coming cannibal apocalypse. I'm in line to inherit a superb, world class collection of hunting rifles. Not sure what I'll do with them. If taking possession of those weapons lines up with doomsday, obviously I'll want to hang on to them.
  20. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Gonk,

    Rather than do a back-and-forth quotefest, let's get to the core of your comments.

    You essentially are arguing that if we got rid of all guns, then my family would be safer. Please correct me if I am wrong about that.

    The problem can be seen in one little statistic: 270 million. That's the number of privately-owned firearms in the US (i.e. not including police, military, etc). It averages out to 85-90 firearms per 100 people. (Unfortunately, I don't have the breakdown between handguns, rifles, and shotguns. For the sake of argument, let's assume 20% of them are handguns.) That means that there are approximately 50 million handguns in the US.

    How is it even remotely feasible to eliminate all 50 million handguns from the US? You can't just confiscate them all, because there's no current record of who owns them (gun registration is not required on the federal level, and only a handful of states require it). If you ask people to turn them in, you'll only be taking them from the law abiding citizens who respect a ban. The criminals aren't going to hand over their guns.

    So, how would you do it?

    Until you can present a way to disarm criminals, there is no point to trying to disarm law abiding citizens. Why? Because a firearm is a force multiplier (or a force equalizer, depending on the situation). When it comes to hand-to-hand combat (armed or unarmed), size really does matter. If you take two people of roughly equal skill levels, the larger person will almost always win. However, when one person is armed with a handgun, it changes the force disparity in their favor; A 85 pound woman can successfully hold off a 250 pound man. If both are armed, it becomes a pure contest of skill, rather than a bias in favor of the larger person.

    When you disarm the law abiding citizens, and not the criminals, what you do is create a force disparity in the criminal's favor. As we've already established that the police can't always be there, the police by themselves cannot correct this force disparity. Unless your name is Jackie Chan, Chow Yun Fat, or Jet Li, no amount of hand-to-hand training will compensate for that force disparity.

    Until you address that simple force disparity, your entire argument is worthless, a product of wishful thinking.

    Kimball Kinnison
  21. Master_SweetPea Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2002
    star 4
    Owning firearms and having common sense is not mutually exclusive.
    It's just an additional way to be prepared, not a preparation in place of standard prevention.


    As for violent crime, most perpetrators don't use firearms.
    Something like 63.9% of Rapists, 39.7% of Robbers, and 59.3% of attackers just use their bare hands.

    Then there's non-human predators.
    [image=http://www.hi-pointfirearms.com/images/gallery/yote9mm.jpg]
    Coyotes are often a threat to cattle and some small pets.
    [image=http://www.bondarms.com/SnakeGunTestimPitLarge.gif]
    [image=http://www.bondarms.com/SnakeGun2for1Large.gif]
    Venomous Snakes are common.
    Rabid animals are a threat as well.

    If I were to come across any of those at my home, I would likely just use a shotgun (shovel for a snake).
    However If I'm camping with my kids, hiking in a state Forrest, hunting for hogs with a rife, etc. It's simply not practical to carry a shovel or shotgun with me everywhere I go. A small holstered pistol loaded with these and these will do nicely in case I come up against a Coyote/Snake/Lunatic.

    I have no idea what type of security there was at Tucson, so I can't really comment on how to prevent incidents like that.
    Since information about the shooter is not yet reliable, there's no way to know if he could have been legally held before hand in accordance to the "Mental Health Act" of Arizona.

    Lastly, there is no such thing as an "average citizen" we are all unique. The average citizen will never have his or her home burned to the ground, but I still have insurance. The average nuclear reactor won't have a meltdown but I still have Nukepills in my home and car. The average child will not drown, but both my children went to the Infant Swimming Resource every summer. The average canine will not be exposed to rabies, but I still get my dog vaccinated.


  22. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    shootin varmits and sech in rural areas is a different issue entirely than urban RTC. The most recent analysis of statistical evidence suggests that RTC laws have no effect whatsoever in reducing homicides.

    Aside from the general lack of evidence that RTC reduces gun violence in the slightest, having a loaded handgun in the house is different from locking the doors or learning CPR or the heimlich maneuver or requiring your kids to become strong swimmers (all of which I highly recommend) in that it also increases the odds of unintended gun death through accident or misuse.

    Even after you get a gun owner to admit that owning a handgun is pointless (I'll concede the blasting away at varmits argument) they fall back to "but it's my God given right."

    And in the U.S., the Supreme Court agrees with you. I just prefer it when handgun advocates agree that their only real purpose for carrying a gun is exercising their right for the sake of the right itself and for no other reason, an act almost as entirely divorced from practical reality as preparing for the Rapture.

    At least with the first amendment, people try to have some kind of ulterior motive for exercising it.
  23. Master_SweetPea Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2002
    star 4
    1-A. Homicides are not the only type of crime.
    B. Which recent analysis are you referring to? How did they define Homicides?- an intended rape victim shooting her attacker may have been included as a homicide.

    2-Again as I just posted earlier most criminal violence involves, non-firearm weapons or just bare hands. So it's not about reducing "Gun Violence" (whatever that actually means). In fact If muggers and rapists are shot that would be an increase in
    "gun Violence" even though a benefit for the general population and IMO a better way of life.

    3 Having a car increases my chances of getting into an accident, buying a lottery ticket increases my chances of becoming a millionaire and having someone kidnap my children. None of these things keep me up at night..maybe because I don't buy lottery tickets, and I wear my seatbelt while I safely drive my car.

    4 Just because Jabbadabbado says it's pointless does not make it so. There are many high-risk private civilian jobs; Tow-truck Drivers, Pizza Delivery, Taxi Driver, Convenience Store Clerk, Pharmacist, Private Security, etc. These are people who tend to work with the disgruntled public everyday. As I posted earlier I work at a Pharmacy and we are robbed often. Recently we had a very violent attack on a Pharmacist, luckily it turned out okay. The attacker only made off with about $20,000.00 worth of Schedule-II meds that could easily kill someone in overdose, hopefully the attacker will do just that. But when guys try that I would rather see him get shot, go to the hospital, and be arrested etc.

    5-There are plenty of Atheists out there who will never fall back to that argument, like Penn Jillette, for example.
  24. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    Sorry, by "God given right" I meant constitutional right. Sometimes I confuse the two.

    The study I'm referencing is:

    "The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws and the NRC Report: Lessons for the Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy" January 5, 2011, Abhay Aneja, Stanford Law School, John J. Donohue III, Stanford Law School, Alex Zhang, Johns Hopkins University

    They review results using different modeling techniques and different data sets for murder, rape, aggravated assault, robbery, auto theft, burglary and larceny, finding no statistical support for decreased crime rates in RTC states.
  25. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Except that your cited study undercuts your arguments.

    In the original NRC report, 1 reviewer identified a decrease, while the rest identified no change. None of the researchers, either in the original NRC report or the follow up that you cite identified an increase in crime in RTC states.

    At the very minimum, that clearly refutes the claims of groups like the Brady Campaign that blood would run in the streets when RTC laws are passed. That would also suggest that if there is no change in crime rates, then RTC laws do not cause overall harm to the public. If they then provide individuals the ability to protect themselves, then what is the basis to oppose them? You haven't demonstrated overall harm, and so the option that provides the greater amount of liberty should be the default.

    Incidentally, the citation date you provided doesn't match with what Stanford's site lists. They give a publication date of June 29, 2010.

    Kimball Kinnison
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.