My own class M planet. Planet Slangun. :)

The problem is that your point is constantly moving. You address one aspect of the debate, which conflicts with other aspects of your point. You talk about easy access to guns. An armed society is a polite society. Keep the guns away from criminals. Punish those who misuse guns. Legal gun owners have to go through a rigorous process to get licensed and don't want to loose that license. You can't have all of these things - many are in conflict with each other.

Now, describe the system that you'd like in place. Don't address a specific of my post, describe your all-encompassing plan where there is easy access to guns without abuse by non-licensed gun riff-raff. Where you can protect your life and property, but not shoot your neighbor, whether on purpose or by accident. Let's hear how you can accomplish all of these things. :eyebrow:

Guns were almost non-existent in the old west. This for numerous reasons. Some obvious ones. First, guns were manufactured in only two places in America - Harper's Ferry VA and Springfield MA. Hunting parties traveled in large numbers so that among twenty might be three guns. Furthermore, those hunting parties had to carefully arrange who would shoot and who would withhold fire - so that a loaded gun always remained.

Second, a gun cost something like two years salary. Most could not afford a gun. The wild west gunslinger was extremely rare. Few had guns. Therefore violent murders were few. In fact most murders were among the rich because only the rich had guns.

Along comes something called a civil war. Early armies were equipped with European weapons because America had so few. But the civil war meant massive gun manufacturing AND so many guns. After the war, soldiers returned home with their weapons. Next ten years were the most violent. America had never seen so many violent murders – if I remember on the order of tens of times higher. Violent murder rate increased with more guns. That fact was and is not just in America. The same trend is repeated in most every country.

Does not matter that another country may have 1.8 times more guns per person and less violent deaths. The fact is that when numbers of guns increase in any country, the violent death rate also increases.

Reality - more guns mean increased murder rates. No way around that reality.

More guns= more gun deaths. Guns that shoot more = more things are efficiently killed.

Ask your local Emergency room personnel. Accidents happen. Guns make killing efficient and easy.

Would gun control have impacted the Amish girl murders? no.

Would it have spared the life of the Wisconsin principal. Maybe.

As Spex points out you gun owners are too idealistic. get real. Its about gun sales,volume, not personal or public safety. If your theory is so sound, why dont we solve the Iraq crisis through manditory arming? That would make them much more polite.

That would be redundant as most of them are already armed. :D

On this one, I gotta disagree with you, tw. Sure the 10 years or so after the Civil War were more violent. That's because alot of people were, in effect, still fighting it. To this day, in areas of the deep South, people are STILL mistrustful of Northerners. You're right about the "wild West," though. Most of the violence out here was perpetuated against Native Americans who then retaliated in turn.

Could you give us a cite for this, please?

Many of you seem to argue that stricter gun control laws would cut down on the amount of violent crime. And I do agree with this. But I do not thing that it will solve any of the real problems that we have with violent crime. Most violent criminals come from places that have poor education systems, and little economic stability. Almost half of the violent criminals (not necessarily gun users) released from prison will return within 3 years, 1/3 of the non-violent criminals. This shows that our system of punishment is not working. Our country needs to concentrate on socially benificial programs (and I'm not talking welfare) so that the cause of crime and criminal behavior can be treated. This will prevent people from wanting to commit a crime, not just prevent them from being able too.

Michael Moore did but people would rather focus on his weight or liberal bias :greenface

There are some interesting stats gleaned from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime:

Drug offences:
Norway = 987.1 per 100,000 people
United States = 560.1 per 100,000 people
Finland = 259.7 per 100,000 people
United Kingdom = 214.3 per 100,000 people

I can't imagine Norway or Finland more adept and providing their own drugs than the USA. So the drugs have to be getting there somehow.

Now look at murders with firearms per capita:

Colombia = 0.509801 per 1,000 people (it's safe to say that's largely drug related)
United States = 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
Canada = 0.00502972 per 1,000 people

Finland does not even make the list. Either it's statistically insignificant or they don't differentiate by murder tool. They do however have 0.0283362 murders per 1,000 people. Yes, their total murders per capita is only slightly higher than the firearm murders per capita of the USA. Total murders per capita in USA is 0.042802 per 1,000 people. Norway 0.0106684 per 1,000 people. Drugs trade looks a very unspecioius claim in light of those facts.

Canada certainly isn't more homogenous. From the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development we learn that in the year 2000 the USA ranks #6 in immigration with 10.4% its populations immigrants. Canada has 17.4%.

Interesting stats indeed. Never realised that Norway was on top of the list.

Interesting also to see that our little "drug liberal" country (or narcotic state as Mr.Chirac once claimed) is #20 on the list with 47 per 100,000 people. Less than a 10th of the US, which is always lecturing us how to deal with drugs...

PS and what about Switzerland!!

The charts and data were posted many years ago. Older dwellers may confirm those trends.

Charted were gun ownership and violent deaths. A major peak occured in the post civil war decade. Another peak coincided with increased gun ownership during prohibition.

If more guns means safer streets, then why did sharp increases in murders occur when gun ownership increased? According to claims made here by others, then more guns should mean decreased violent deaths. That trend was not only demonstrated in America. Same trend was demonstrated in other nations.

Also noted was why murder in old west towns such as Tombstone were so low. These cattle towns required all to surrender weapons before entering. In that time, most murders were in big cities where the rich had more guns and where more guns were carried in public.

Spexx, I'm trying to figure out the best way to respond to you. First off, I think you're confusing some things that I said with things that Maggie said.

I actually don't think there is a need for any type of firearms 'licensing' or 'permit'. Both imply that I don't have a right to keep and bear arms. I think that the model for the way things should be is what's commonly called "Vermont Carry". In Vermont and Alaska you can carry a firearm concealed. You don't need a permission slip from the state government telling you that you can do so. I would like to see this in all 50 U.S. states. I would like to be able to cross the borders of other states without having to check a book to see what I have to do next to be legal in that state ... secured in the trunk, disassembled, in a locked container, ammunition in a separate locked container, doesn't do me much good when I make a wrong turn in Camden.

As I stated before, I would like to see criminals actually treated as criminals, going to jail, with sentence extensions for committing crimes with guns. Parollees and Probationers should go back to jail with a sentence extension if they are found to be in possession of a firearm, give a hot urine, or violate their probation/parole in some other way.

Background checks/instacheck is okay ... criminals should not be buying guns from legal dealers, but the records of those checks are supposed to be destroyed. Registration is the first step on the road to confiscation, as we have learned from the British and the Australians.

I, for one, would like to see those numbers, along with other crime statistics at the same time ... was this an urban effect, or was it also seen in rural areas. Were the perpetrator and victim, as is often the case today, both engaging in other illegal activities?

You were hear when those numbers and charts were posted. You had posted in that discussion. When all that information was posted, suddenly, those who advocated more guns went silent.

What thread?

But the events during these times were the main reason that there was an increase in violent deaths. During the Reconstruction, there was great animosity towards the Radical Republicans, and all northerners really. Its still there in the south to some extent. The former confederates had been defeated, but they didn't want to be conquered. They rebelled against the north. The KKK was began to repel the Radical Republicans, and those were their main target. After Reconstruction the violence started to end, the north was no longer constantly agitating the former Confederate states, and those states had gained back much of the freedom they had lost because of their defeat.
During prohibition the amount of illegal activity increased because people all over the country were rebelling against the prohibition law. The mafia was profiting greatly by smuggling in booze and were fighting over territory.
There is normally a reason that violent crime increases, and it is not the availabilty of guns that makes people violent. They must feel a need or want for a gun, they plan on using it and therefore seek out aquiring one, either legally or illegally. If they plan on using the gun for an illegal activity they will most likely aquire the gun through illegal means, harder for the weapon to be traced back to them.

How many would you like? :eyebrow:

Absolutely, positively, not true. Everyone is the west had a gun....at least every man and many of the women. For that matter most everyone in the east, that didn't live in one of the cities, did too.

Not everyone had a handgun, because they were expensive and not all that accurate, reliable or useful. The long gun, however, was essential for obtaining food and not becoming food. People were further from the top of the food chain then.
Oh, and those pesky heathens that lived there first.

Harper's Ferry, VA and Springfield, MA were military ordinance, although during the war, people like Mr Colt in Hartford, Ct, lent a hand. That's when manufacturing of interchangeable parts, field repairable, cheap(er), and with that wonderful invention the metallic cartridge, came about.

Ever hear of the Pennsylvania Rifle, the Kentucky Rifle? These guns were made by blacksmiths by the tens of thousands. Blacksmiths that proved adept at making guns were in much demand and turned to gunsmithing exclusively. They also commanded more money but most of the other blacksmiths still made guns in their spare time between horseshoeing and utensil building.

After the war, was a period of "how ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm". Young men that had a taste of travel and adventure. Before that most people never went more than 50 miles from home in there whole lives unless they were emigrating for some reason. Sure, most of the soldiers just wanted to go home, but many, particularly in the South, had no home to go to, and others had reasons they didn't want to or couldn't go home. More people on the move, repeating weapons and hard feelings, are a recipe for conflict.


A couple people claimed making handguns is difficult. Not so. Making accurate, reliable, high caliber guns, yes. But in my basement, with rudimentary tools, I can turn out a substantial number of single action revolvers that look good enough and work well enough to commit a crime, hold up a person or 7-11, as long as you didn't get into a shootout with the cops or an armed citizen. We're not talking Dirty Harry's magnum, .22, .32 or .38 will do.
If somebody sticks a gun in your face are you going to demand to see the machining marks?....ask to see the heat treat record for the barrel? :headshake
Don't forget that most crimes committed with a gun, no shots are fired. Despite the YouTube clips of clerks opening a can of whoopass on armed robbers, most people acquiesce.

forgiveness
 

Because it was pointless...go read John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime"; he explains why those statistics are misleadingly interpreted.

More matches = more house fires? More crowbars = more burglaries? More ski masks = more bank holdups

The majority of legal defensive gun uses do not involve "gun deaths", gunshot wounds, or even discharging the weapon.

Read Gun Facts, and then Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime".

Oh, but tw said it; it's "reality". ;-)

Lott's "study" is no more statistically sound that my laypersons typing of

More guns = more gun deaths.

or the majority of gun deaths are caused by gun shots.

His stats are suspect, and his analysis weak.
I bet I can find more evidence for my equation. I'll see what I can find. Meantime:

The flaw with your example is that the objects you cite have uses other than causing death. That is what a gun is for. If is doesnt kill, its not effective. If youre not ready to use it to kill, dont own it. right?

And I'd forgotten about all the Lott fraud! You sure picked a lame reference, Mags. (Meanwhile, I'll continue to gather up the research I can find that suggests the reality of my simple equation)

this debunking courtesy of the brady gun control campaign site:
Only the tip of the freaky fraud iceberg http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=lott

There's a very significant difference between being "ready to kill", and killing. Not every one who is "ready" to kill actually kills anyone.

A gun that cannot kill isn't an effective weapon...but a weapon doesn't have to be used to kill to be used. Every cop on the street has a gun (and the smart ones have more than one), but they very, very seldom use them to shoot to kill. (So seldom that too many cops think they'll *never* need to fire them, and don't develop and maintain the skill to use them well.) But a cop's sidearm that isn't used to kill isn't "useless". It changes a situation by simply existing.

Or he misleadingly misinterprets statistics, himself.

Yeah, the Brady Bunch are real authorities on statistics. They've been manufacturing them for years.

The second edition of "More Guns, Less Crime" was published in 2000, with new data reinforcing the original conclusions. His more recent work is "The Bias Aginst Guns", which deals with how media handles the issue.

Go look at Gun Facts for other stats on defensive gun use...it's free.

Oh, no! Another expert on "reality"! Whatever will we do if they disagree?

"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" – Adam Savage

Didn't Lott impersonate himself on the internet as this "Mary Rosh" female person to praise his own work? Can we take this guy serious?

Lott finds, for example, that both increasing the rate of unemployment and reducing income reduces the rate of violent crimes and that reducing the number of black women 40 years old or older (who are rarely either perpetrators or victims of murder) substantially reduces murder rates. Indeed, according to Lott's results, getting rid of older black women will lead to a more dramatic reduction in homicide rates than increasing arrest rates or enacting shall-issue laws. (New England Journal of Medicine)

I've had lunch with him. I take him seriously.

You on the other hand...well... Not to worry, your government isn't about to let you have a weapon, so it's a non-issue for you.

"Reducing" them how? Citation, please?

I suspect that high rates of crimes around black women 40 or older would have to do with the presence of black men 20 and younger.

My friend Bob said that Making sure there are NO guns in the entire world would reduce the number of murders by guns. I've had lunch with him. I take him seriously. :rollanim:

Where did you have lunch: where the elite meet to eat? ;)

I've had lunch with him too. I don't know whether it was his bulging biceps, or his steely gaze, which seemed to pierce my very soul. All I know for sure is that, at that moment, John Lott could have told me anything, anything at all, at all and I would have believed him.

God help me, that man is impossible not to believe... . . . when you have lunch with him.

Making sure there are no guns in the entire would would require godlike powers. (Making sure that only criminals have them only requires passing an idiotic law, of course).

Is your friend a deity? Does he talk to you when others are around, or only when you're alone?

You take a researcher who anonymously praises his own work serious? Or are you just a gullable person and eat his words without any criticism?

Ask your lunch partner Lott, it was his resarch. The New England Journal of Medicine reviewed his book and found this strange result.

Lott's junk science proofs that legalizing abortion increased murder rates by around about 0.5 to 7 percent and the murder rate would have increased by 250% since 1974 if the United States had not built so many new prisons.

Next time you have lunch with him, ask Mr.Lott why he had no variation in his key causal variable – "shall issue" laws – in the places where most murders occurred. America's counties vary tremendously in size and social characteristics. A few large ones, containing major cities, account for a very large percentage of the murders in the United States. As it happens, none of these very large counties have "shall issue" gun control laws.

The Delaware Valley Pink Pistols meets once a month for lunch; he accepted our invitation to join us a while back.

So you don't have a citation. Makes the claim difficult to refute.

I'll accept that as agreement. It's probably the closest thing I'll ever get to agreement, anyway...
You better watch what you say, Bob is standing right next to you. And that's his name, not what he does.

Uh, ahem... she was talking to me.

Not true. Philadelphia County is a case in point...despite the lobbying of the mayor, the state shall-issue law preempts any county statute.

When "shall-issue" laws are passed, they are usually accompanied or preceded by state-level preemption statutes, otherwise the largely Democratically-controlled urban areas would pass their own local law requireing citizens disarm themselves when entering.

If there were in fact no ${x}, there could be no deaths caused by ${x}. But for ${x}=firearms, such a state is neither possible nor desirable.

So...you bought lunch. ; )

Thank you for the concession and agreement. :)

In the state of Pennsylvania, a "shall issue" law was passed in 1989, but the city of Philadelphia was exempted from it. Comparing figures with Pittsburgh show that murder rates are generally higher in Philadelphia than in Pittsburgh, but the passage of a law giving citizens the right to get permits to carry concealed weapons did not have the positive effect posited by John Lott. In fact, the Pittsburgh murder rate was declining prior to the passage of the law, then increased slightly. In Philadelphia, the murder rate had been increasing, then it leveled off despite the fact that the new law did not apply in that city. The violent crime statistics for the same two counties show the same pattern.

The "first-class city" restriction applied to licence issuance in Philadelphia, it did not make permits issued elsewhere in the state (such as in the adjoining suburban counties) invalid in Philadelphia. And after observing the effect of the shall-issue law in the rest of the Commonwealth, the legislature made its application uniform thoughout Pennsylvania...even though Philadelphia still seriously drags its feet in complying with issuances.

A pretty thin concession, and damned little agreement. What I don't conceed is your original assertion that the number of legal guns and the amount of gun crime are correlated.

Spexx, taken together, the entirety of the two sentences of MaggieL's statement are by no means an agreement. They are a statement that your position is an impossible one. In this world anyway.

No, she agrees, and her assessment that it is impossible is merely her pessimistic view. Some people thought that putting a man on the moon would be impossible. They were wrong - perhaps Maggie will be wrong. I, for one, will not be so presumptuous, arrogant, or closed minded to say that it absolutely *will* or *won't* happen, only that it *is* possible.

The freedom contained in Jesus' teaching of forgiveness, wrote the German philosopher Hannah Arendt, is the freedom from vengeance, which includes both doer and sufferer in the relentless automatism of the action process, which by itself need never come to an end.

Strong stuff.

A deeply flawed analogy.

The key to the success of the lunar exploration program was the use of fail-safe design; if you failed to achieve your design intention the result should be as harmless as possible. The result of a failure of a legal effort to eliminate all firearms would be that only criminals would be armed. That's not an acceptable outcome.

Nor do I wish to return to the medivial days when power resided in the hands of the physically strong. Firearms make self-defense accessible to all.

What I said was what I meant...and lifting part of the posting out of context is lame. I say for the case ${x}=firearms, the proposition is unacheivable, and even if it were achievable it's not desirable.

Gwennie has a bumper sticker that says "You can't beat a woman who shoots." So true.

:notworthy

Also:

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." --Mahatma Gandhi

I can never tell when people are being sarcastic.
You cannot undo technology.
So, if you did actually dig up Merlin and release him from his crystal chamber, burn the Bill of Rights and get rid of the existing guns in the ensuing police state.
After that, within three hours, anyone knowing someone with plans, and a milling machine, would have their gun back. I would be one of them.
It is a very simplistic, and fascist, fantasy.

Not true.

MaggieL, I admire your patience and your intellect, even though your opinions coincide with mine only sometimes. But your tendency to make illogical conclusions like the one above, and others just like it, and then use them as though they were facts, misrepresents cause and effect. You frequently misuse causation and correlation. This is a typical example, and it weakens your arguments.

I don't intend this as a flame or a personal attack. You set an admirable example of arguing at a high level and I'm joining you there.

Don't stop there Big V, tell us why that statement is flawed. :question:

How so?

The full context of my statement was (spelling corrected): "Nor do I wish to return to the medieval days when power resided in the hands of the physically strong. Firearms make self-defense accessible to all." You assert "not true" without a supporting argument or evidence.

I'll make a minor consession to admit that the blind, minor children and quadraplegics don't have direct access to the self-defense benefits of firearms; they must rely on others for protection, as they do for other necessities like food. To that extent those benefiting from the ability to arm themselves fall short of "all". But not by much.

If you're "joining [me] on that level" you're not there yet.

Yes, excellent artwork....I'll have to tune in on Wednesdays for future installments. :thumb2:

The analogy was not between guns and lunar exploration, though that was a good try to go off-topic. The analogy was between people who think the possible is impossible. People like you.