Prohibit Gun Posession by Citizens?

[spingears]

Washington DC prohibited possession of guns by individuals a few years ago and now has the highest homicide rate in the country.

San Franscisco is attempting to follow suit, or try to.

Why would they want to make the individual citizens vulnerable and give criminals the advantage?

[Polycarp]

Because "they" are by definition intent on nefarious plans aimed at depriving citizens of their rights -- the one fact on which extremists at all limits of the political spectrum are agreed.

In point of fact, gun control advocates suggest that strong limits be placed on guns, precisely with the idea of keeping them out of the hands of criminals or potential criminals, while allowing the peacable citizen with no hot temper the privilege of holding a license to possess firearms.

Their intent, of course, is to cut down on crime.

I have said before and will repeat, that conditions in differing parts of the country -- and even in differing parts of individual states -- are sufficiently diverse that no one-size-fits-all policy with regard to guns, whether it be total Second Amendment freedom or anything from that to making them illegal except for military and police use, is ever going to work.

I lived for a few months in an apartment building with certifiably insane crack users in a neighboring apartment -- and I was glad they had no access to weapons. And I know of people who live 50 miles from the nearest full-time law enforcement officer, and in an area where the wildlife watches you -- and to restrict their possession of firearms is tantamount to tying them naked and outstretched to four widely-spread stakes, rubbing them all over with raw beefsteak and catnip, and leaving them to be preyed on.

There probably is an answer to the gun-possession question. And it's not going to be found by facile, simplistic extremism in either direction.

[Ravenman]

If anyone thinks that the gun ban here in DC is the reason that there are so many murders, you ought to come out here and visit sometime to dispell your illusions. WE have rampant poverty, a terrible education system, and decades of incompetent government. These have allowed a criminal underground to thrive. I'm not in favor of the gun ban in DC, but the idea that the ban alone caused a sky-high murder rate is just laughable.

[Mr. Moto]

Agreed. But the gun ban sure isn't cutting down on those murders either.

Meanwhile, a law abiding citizen like myself didn't even consider living in the District when I moved to the area back in 1998. I might have done so except that I am a gun owner, and didn't want to be considered a felon just by storing my target and hunting arms at home. DC then lost me as a potential taxpayer and property owner.

I moved instead to the Virginia suburbs. Virginia, to put it mildly, has something of a permissive attitude toward guns.

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

I lived for a few months in an apartment building with certifiably insane crack users in a neighboring apartment -- and I was glad they had no access to weapons.

How did they not have access to weapons? If they are willing to break the law by using crack, why would it bother them to illegally posses a firearm?

[jimpatro]

Since we were granted the right to carry, violent crime has dropped in Texas.
Handguns should have been banned in the 19th century but now it's too late.
It would be foolish to take guns away from law abiding citizens while criminals will still have them.

[Abbie Carmichael]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

WE have rampant poverty, a terrible education system, and decades of incompetent government. These have allowed a criminal underground to thrive. I'm not in favor of the gun ban in DC, but the idea that the ban alone caused a sky-high murder rate is just laughable.

West Virginia has very permissive gun laws and one of the lowest murder rates in the nation. Last I checked we were the 6th safest state overall, crime-wise.

No one factor can explain it, so I'm not saying that DC is dangerous solely because their law abiding citizens aren't allowed to have guns. But I would point out that we also have crushing poverty out the wazoo and a hell of a lot less economic opportunity than DC enjoys. Our schools also suck, too, and we have a wealth of corrupt politicians that refuse to die/retire and have been running the state into the ground for 70 years.

Why is it, then, that West Virginia remains a relatively safe place to live while DC is so dangerous? Are West Virginians just "better people" than DC'ers? No. I don't see any other difference between the two except that in WV, a criminal knows the person whose house they are breaking into in the middle of the night is likely to be armed and just itchin' to shoot a bad guy. Maybe if DC leveled the playing field, their criminals would be a little less fearless. It's hard to be afraid of the woman you're about to rape when you know there's a 99% chance that she has nothing more than a kitchen knife to defend herself with.

[jimpatro]

All this talk about poverty and lack of opportunity. You know, some(dare I say most?) people have morals and no matter how hard things may get, they'll never resort to crime.

[Abbie Carmichael]

Originally Posted by jimpatro

All this talk about poverty and lack of opportunity. You know, some(dare I say most?) people have morals and no matter how hard things may get, they'll never resort to crime.

So what's your point? DC just happens to have more immoral people with guns than other areas of the country?

[jimpatro]

My point is that I don't think criminals are created by poverty. It certainly is no excuse.

[jimpatro]

Scum who steal and/or rape and/or kill will do so anyway regardless of socio-economic status. Take Winona Ryder or O.J. for instance.

[buns3000]

Originally Posted by jimpatro

My point is that I don't think criminals are created by poverty.

Take a trip down to the courthouse and you'll see that you're wrong.

Originally Posted by spingears

Why would they want to make the individual citizens vulnerable and give criminals the advantage?

They must love crime. Or maybe they are aware of the correlation between liberal gun ownership laws and gun deaths.

[Abbie Carmichael]

buns have you read anything we've been saying?

[buns3000]

Originally Posted by Abbie Carmichael

buns have you read anything we've been saying?

Yes, I just don't agree with it. Is that OK?

[OtakuLoki]

Originally Posted by jimpatro

Scum who steal and/or rape and/or kill will do so anyway regardless of socio-economic status. Take Winona Ryder or O.J. for instance.

I'm afraid I'm going to disagree with you. Yes, there are people who firmly believe that they aren't bound by laws or morality. However that is not the only source for criminals or criminal behavior. I don't believe that all criminals are created by poverty, but in poor areas, especially poor areas with historically corrupt government, there comes a point where many people will decide that there is no way to get ahead while playing by the rules. And so start playing outside the rules.

There is no one source for criminal behavior. Which is why I agree with what Polycarp has said in his post.

[jimpatro]

I will amend my statement and concede that poverty may lead to crime in some cases.

[blowero]

Originally Posted by spingears

Washington DC prohibited possession of guns by individuals a few years ago and now has the highest homicide rate in the country.

Non causa pro causa. DC has always had the highest homicide rate.

[Renob]

Does the D.C. gun ban cause the crime here in D.C.? No, but it certainly doesn't help. I'm not sure that those who oppose the gun ban should necessarily frame their argument as "D.C.'s gun ban caused the high crime rate, so therefore if we repeal it crime will go down." I think the cause and effect is hard to prove, and if it would ever get repealed and then crime does not go down, it would be much easier to reinstate it.

I think the way to frame the argument is that the gun ban has been completely ineffective. Everyone who lives in or around D.C. knows that criminals in D.C. have easy access to guns. It's not like this law has stopped these people from obtaining firearms. The only people prevented from owning guns here are the law abiding citizens -- the ones, by definition, who would not misuse the guns (to be completely accurate -- it's not illegal to own shotguns or single-shot rifles. I own a shotgun here, but it was a pain in the ass to register. Handguns and semi-automatic rifles are banned. Of course, D.C. law prevents them from being stored with ammunition in them, so they are legally ineffective for defensive purposes). Since criminals ignore the law, it makes sense to allow law-abiding citizens the chance to own a gun to defend themselves. Of course, to make it truly effective they would also have to allow concealed carry permits.

Now, let's assume that this happens. Will the crime rate in D.C. go down? I doubt it. Most of the people in D.C. are liberals who abhor guns in principle. Even if guns were legal, they would not own one. Criminals would still know that they could prey on the rich liberals in Dupont Cirle, Logan Circle, Georgetown, etc., since these folks would never think of owning a gun. In other neighborhoods, the people already have guns and are already using them defensively. If you read about a lot of D.C. murders, you'll see that many of them were probably defensive use of firearms. Sure, it was probably a drug dealer defending his life from another drug dealer or something of that sort, but it's still a defensive use of a gun.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Renob

If you read about a lot of D.C. murders, you'll see that many of them were probably defensive use of firearms. Sure, it was probably a drug dealer defending his life from another drug dealer or something of that sort, but it's still a defensive use of a gun.

What a lot of hooey. For one thing, killing someone in self defense is not "murder". For another, I can just as easily state that there has never been a defensive use of firearms in DC, if I am not required to support that claim. Put up or shut up.

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by Berkut

How did they not have access to weapons? If they are willing to break the law by using crack, why would it bother them to illegally posses a firearm?

Small city in New York -- a state where there are controls on legal firearms. They apparently didn't have connections to get illegal weapons, and certainly weren't about to apply for permits to buy them legally.

Originally Posted by OtakuLaki

I'm afraid I'm going to disagree with you. Yes, there are people who firmly believe that they aren't bound by laws or morality. However that is not the only source for criminals or criminal behavior. I don't believe that all criminals are created by poverty, but in poor areas, especially poor areas with historically corrupt government, there comes a point where many people will decide that there is no way to get ahead while playing by the rules. And so start playing outside the rules.

Yeah, I too have seen this attitude from people. "If the law refuses to help, we need to take the law into our own hands." Unfortunate but true. There's no one magic line between "sociopathic criminals" and the rest of us.

[MEBuckner]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

In point of fact, gun control advocates suggest that strong limits be placed on guns, precisely with the idea of keeping them out of the hands of criminals or potential criminals, while allowing the peacable citizen with no hot temper the privilege of holding a license to possess firearms.

Well, if the media reports are to be believed, the San Francisco proposal is not to license but (according to NPR) to completely ban possession of handguns by anyone except for "police, security guards, and military personnel".

[Renob]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

In point of fact, gun control advocates suggest that strong limits be placed on guns, precisely with the idea of keeping them out of the hands of criminals or potential criminals, while allowing the peacable citizen with no hot temper the privilege of holding a license to possess firearms.

Their intent, of course, is to cut down on crime.

I agre with you that the intent of gun control advocates is noble -- they want to cut crime. However, there is no way that you can design a gun control scheme that will actually do this. Guns are easily obtainable regardless of their legal status. There is no way to pass a law that will actually prevent a criminal from obaining a gun if he wants one. The only thing a law will do is make it harder to get a gun for someone who is willing to follow the law (and, by that indication, not a threat to society).

It's easily seen in D.C. Handguns are banned and yet the criminals have no trouble getting handguns. Hell, I'll bet I could go get a handgun in an hour if I wanted to do so. Of course, I don't, because I'm a law abiding citizen. I'm the one paying attention to the law, not the criminals.

[Renob]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

What a lot of hooey. For one thing, killing someone in self defense is not "murder". For another, I can just as easily state that there has never been a defensive use of firearms in DC, if I am not required to support that claim. Put up or shut up.

I was merely making a statement based on my reading of the news. The circumstances of a lot of drug related deaths and the background of the people killed leads me to believe that many of these deaths were drug dealers shooting each other. It is likely that if this is the case, many of them were defensive use of firearms. Of course, since drug dealers operate outside the law, there is no way to prove this. However, it is interesting that recently a high school kid who shot another here in D.C. was acquitted of murder because he claimed that acted in defense of himself.

[Arwin]

Originally Posted by Renob

It's easily seen in D.C. Handguns are banned and yet the criminals have no trouble getting handguns. Hell, I'll bet I could go get a handgun in an hour if I wanted to do so. Of course, I don't, because I'm a law abiding citizen. I'm the one paying attention to the law, not the criminals.

If you care to look at some world-wide statistics, you will see that there is in fact a correlation between poverty, availability of hand guns, and shootings. The whole concept of Washington being full of liberal softies not willing to defend themselves if their lives depended on it is ridiculous. Rather, they recognise that owning a gun is more likely to add to the gun-related death scoreboard because of gun related accidents (children getting their hands on them, parents shooting relatives mistaken for burglars, and so on).

I have lived here for 30 years and I have never seen a real gun. Ever. Do you think there is a correlation between that and gun-related deaths where I live? If so, you are correct. Taking guns away will take a while to have effect, but eventually they will be harder to come by. This will take some time, it is definitely time worth taking.

Having said that, there is nothing like fighting crime than taking away the cause for it, and that anyone that doesn't yet understand that the number one cause for crime is poverty, should open his eyes and kick-start his brain. If you're open to scientific evidence, you can come to no other conclusion.

[Renob]

Originally Posted by Arwin

If you care to look at some world-wide statistics, you will see that there is in fact a correlation between poverty, availability of hand guns, and shootings.

Perhaps, but correlation is not causation. Poor people are more likely to engage in violence, but does that mean that being poor made them engage in violence, or does it mean that the same factors that made them poor also make them prone to violence?

I grew up in a poor rural area that had lots of guns. There was very little gun violence (although there was a lot of physical violence -- spousal abuse, fights at school, etc.). Simply being poor and having guns available does not lead to the type of violence that plagues D.C.

The whole concept of Washington being full of liberal softies not willing to defend themselves if their lives depended on it is ridiculous.

No, it's not. D.C. is full of liberal softies who are afraid of guns. I'm friends with a lot of them.

Rather, they recognise that owning a gun is more likely to add to the gun-related death scoreboard because of gun related accidents (children getting their hands on them, parents shooting relatives mistaken for burglars, and so on).

Actually, that's completely false. Gun accidents among children is exceptionally rare, as is accidental shootings of the sort you describe.

I have lived here for 30 years and I have never seen a real gun. Ever.

What part of DC do you live in? That's a bit odd.

Do you think there is a correlation between that and gun-related deaths where I live? If so, you are correct.

Do you mean to say that there are few gun related deaths in your area of town? I'm a little confused by this statement. Could you plesae clarify.

Taking guns away will take a while to have effect, but eventually they will be harder to come by. This will take some time, it is definitely time worth taking.

I must disagree. Perhaps if we had a national ban on all gun sales and a wholesale confiscation of guns, and if everyone actually turned in their guns, your scenario would play out. However, the number of guns in circulation in the U.S. today, and the fact that they will never be banned (leaving aside the whole debate that arises about whether or not they should be banned), makes your scenario wishful thinking, at best. As it is, D.C. will never see a reduction in illegal guns because guns are so easily obtained from outside D.C. and brought in. D.C.'s gun ban has had almost 30 years to work. It clearly hasn't reduced gun violence at all. It's time to repeal this ineffective law and let law abiding citizens like myself own a means to defend my home.

Having said that, there is nothing like fighting crime than taking away the cause for it, and that anyone that doesn't yet understand that the number one cause for crime is poverty, should open his eyes and kick-start his brain. If you're open to scientific evidence, you can come to no other conclusion.

Again, I don't think that's scientifically proven at all. Sure, poor people are more likely to commit crime, but it doesn't logically follow that they commit crime because they are poor. Correlation, as I said above, is not causation.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Abbie Carmichael

Why is it, then, that West Virginia remains a relatively safe place to live while DC is so dangerous? Are West Virginians just "better people" than DC'ers? No. I don't see any other difference between the two except that in WV, a criminal knows the person whose house they are breaking into in the middle of the night is likely to be armed and just itchin' to shoot a bad guy.

You really don't see any other difference between DC and West Virginia? I repeat, you really need to come here and check things out. I've been through West Virgina a handful of times in the last year or so, and there's quite a few things that stick out in my mind:

1. I've yet to see a high-rise housing project in West Virginia. These projects are breeding grounds for drugs and crime.
2. For all the problems with WV's economy, the unemployment rate is 50% higher in DC than it is in WV. Cite.
3. I've never heard of West Virgina having a crack smoking governor, nor any crack smoking mayors. I really haven't heard of them being reelected to office... twice.
4. West Virginia has among the lowest overall crime rates in the nation. DC has among the highest. If there's not a lot of street crime -- burglary, thefts, drug dealing, etc, I'd say odds are good that there aren't going to be a lot of violent crimes, regardless of whether there's a lot of guns on the street or not.
5. Further, there are states that have just as liberal gun laws as West Virginia, but have a much higher crime rate. For example, Texas' murder rate is roughly twice that of West Virginia.

Again, I don't think the gun ban has done DC any real good, but saying that it has caused more crime just doesn't hold water. My last piece of evidence: the murder rate in DC didn't explode until the late '80s -- the number more than doubled between 1986 and 1989. Cite. But the gun ban was enacted in 1976, if memory serves. It seems to me that the crack epidemic has much more to do with the murder rate than the gun ban. Otherwise, why did it take more than 10 years between the gun ban and the leap in violent crime? And why would burglaries trend downward over the last 25 years if criminals would, in your terms, be less afraid of entering the house of an armed person?

The heart of the problem here is constitutional, not practical. The end of DC's gun ban would have a better effect on freedom than it would on crime. I don't have a doubt in my mind about that.

[DocCathode]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

3. I've never heard of West Virgina having a crack smoking governor, nor any crack smoking mayors. I really haven't heard of them being reelected to office... twice.

Bitch set him up!

Seriously,

As I've said before, I was born in northern VA and lived there until I was 16 or so. I don't recall DC's homicide rate falling out of the top five nationally in all that time. I do remember it being #1 quite a few times. Some combination of factors in DC causes homicides. Whether guns are illegal or not seems to have little effect.

[kanicbird]

My point is that I don't think criminals are created by poverty.

Take a trip down to the courthouse and you'll see that you're wrong.

But during the great depression there was many poor people, and a very low crime rate. Another myth shot to hell, that is if you can still get a gun to shoot it.

[Ravenman]

Do you have a cite for that? I'm genuinely curious as to how the crime rate during the Depression compares to now.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by Renob

Since criminals ignore the law, it makes sense to allow law-abiding citizens the chance to own a gun to defend themselves. Of course, to make it truly effective they would also have to allow concealed carry permits.

Now, let's assume that this happens. Will the crime rate in D.C. go down? I doubt it. Most of the people in D.C. are liberals who abhor guns in principle. Even if guns were legal, they would not own one.

How touching to encounter someone who still believes in such strong correlation between what people preach and what they would practice if given the opportunity.

[brickbacon]

Wouldn't it be more useful to examine the average citizen's need for a gun. I go to school in DC, and it seems to me like there are pretty clear lines of demarcation when it comes to where many of these crimes occur. I don't hear fo many people being robbed or murdered in Georgetown. Having a gun doesn't automatically make it any safer to live in a crappy area because the chances that you would have to use it (and have the use result in a positive outcome) are slim.

As someone esle mentioned, the murder rate in DC seems to be related mostly on the prevelence of drug sales/use and poverty. If that is the case, it would seems that arguing that the law is ineffective based on the murder rate is specious. Also, if the majority of these murders have to do with people who are engaging in illegal activities like drugs sales, then it doesn't present a strong case (aside from constitutional issues) for why the average law-abiding person needs a gun to protect himself/herself. If the average person doesn't have a rational legitimate concern of being robbed, assaulted or worse, then it seems pointless to repeal the law.

I don't know if the statistical data exists but I would be curious to know the answers to the following questions: Where does DC rank in terms of home invasions?, the percentage of robbers/burglars who carry weapons, the percentage of burglaries where the home is occupied by its residents, and any reasonable estimates as to how many of these crimes could have been prevented if the victim had a gun.

As far as I know, most robbers/burglars avoid confrontation and don't carry weapons. The average burglary lasts only a few minutes and doesn't typically result in violence. In addition, one of the most common items stolen from unoccupied homes are guns (according to this site). If allowing homeowners to have guns carries with it the reasonable expectation that many of them will be stolen, then I find it hard to see how repealing the laws could result in a net positive.

If people just want to own a gun to feel safer, then I can understand that. But I don't see how one could argue that they need a gun for protection.

[artcramp]

Okay, so the claim is that there is no link between guns and crime. Why then does the government arm our police officers and military?

Why don't we just give them nightsticks? If we outlaw guns, they won't need them anymore, will they?

The truth is, guns are a deterrent. Most people won't mess with a police officer or any authority figure in matters of law because they are law abiding citizens. There are some who will protest, yell, and will stop at that because they know that they cannot carry it any farther without the possibility that force will be used against them.

Once the gun is used to take life, it has failed it's primary purpose. Self defence is the secondary purpose of a firearm.

Once upon a time, a gun was absolutely necessary to make sure that your family did not go hungry. It will still ensure that, should you need it to do so.

I ask you to look at 9/11, the four hurricanes that rocked Florida and the current earthquake/tsunami disaster in Asia. Do not make the mistake of believing that your government can fully protect you from natural disaster or terrorists, because they can only do so much. They are not all powerful.

If you ever find yourself out of doors with only what you can carry with you, you will want a gun very badly. I loaned one to my mom and her husband for a while after her condo got destroyed by hurricane Ivan. They were glad to have it.

It is a deterrent, it will offer you some small sense of security, and it will keep you from starving to death in addition to being useful for self defense, should everything else fail.

[Voodoochile]

I dont understand the Lefts desire to get rid of peoples right to keep and bear arms either; the existance of the religous Right is more than enough reason for people to keep their right to bear arms.

[ginman999]

I thought changing the name of the NBA team from the Bullets to the Wizards was going to fix the murder problem. I have a carry permit and over 30 guns. "From my cold dead hands"

[enipla]

[quote=Polycarp] And I know of people who live 50 miles from the nearest full-time law enforcement officer, and in an area where the wildlife watches you -- and to restrict their possession of firearms is tantamount to tying them naked and outstretched to four widely-spread stakes, rubbing them all over with raw beefsteak and catnip, and leaving them to be preyed on.[quote]heh.... You now know another one. The 30-30 or .357 makes enough noise to scare of nosey bears. And gives me a bit of protection when I have to do it.

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by Renob

Most of the people in D.C. are liberals who abhor guns in principle.

First, I don't believe that "most of the people in D.C. are liberals -- unless you mean that everyone who votes Democratic, or anyone who stands for civil rights, is ipso facto a liberal. A quick look at the 1950s would speak volumes on this subject in a contrary sense.

Second, I am a liberal -- and a strong rights advocate. I stand for the entire Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment.

I personally do not own or want a gun, and am somewhat gunshy -- and if we ever become close enough friends, I might consider explaining the reasons from my past underlying that feeling. But my son is an avid hunter, I have a number of friends who own firearms of various descriptions, and I am not about to impose my personal reactions on any of them.

Finally, I'm aware that gun control laws as presently imposed are less than effective and might be considered counterproductive. As I said back in post #2, there is an answer, but it's not obvious to me what it is, and it's not going to be found by knee-jerk reactions at either end of the spectrum.

[enipla]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

First, I don't believe that "most of the people in D.C. are liberals -- unless you mean that everyone who votes Democratic, or anyone who stands for civil rights, is ipso facto a liberal. A quick look at the 1950s would speak volumes on this subject in a contrary sense.

Second, I am a liberal -- and a strong rights advocate. I stand for the entire Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment.

I personally do not own or want a gun, and am somewhat gunshy -- and if we ever become close enough friends, I might consider explaining the reasons from my past underlying that feeling. But my son is an avid hunter, I have a number of friends who own firearms of various descriptions, and I am not about to impose my personal reactions on any of them.

Finally, I'm aware that gun control laws as presently imposed are less than effective and might be considered counterproductive. As I said back in post #2, there is an answer, but it's not obvious to me what it is, and it's not going to be found by knee-jerk reactions at either end of the spectrum.

Very well stated Polycarp. I too am a liberal. I believe that folks should be able to make their own decisions (within reason). I choose to own a gun(s).

What seems odd to me, is that the usually pro-gun conservatives are the ones that will eventually chip away at the 2nd.

[Wrath]

The National Academy of Science issued this report just a few days ago.

The big news is that the academy's panel couldn't identify any benefits of decades-long effort to reduce crime and injury by restricting gun ownership. The only conclusion it could draw was: Let's study the question some more (presumably, until we find the results we want).

The academy, however, should believe its own findings. Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey that covered 80 different gun-control measures and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun-control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents.

Comment on Paul Harvey news indicates that many involved in the study had a bias against gun ownership and were pro gun control.

[Renob]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

First, I don't believe that "most of the people in D.C. are liberals -- unless you mean that everyone who votes Democratic, or anyone who stands for civil rights, is ipso facto a liberal. A quick look at the 1950s would speak volumes on this subject in a contrary sense.

Is anyone who votes Democratic automatically a liberal? No, but since the Democratic Party is the liberal party in America, it seems safe to assume that many who vote Democratic are indeed liberals. And, when you consider that over 90% of D.C. votes Democratic, then it seems fairly obvious that the city is full of liberals. And when you further consider that the one Republican we have in the City Council is pretty liberal, and when you also consider that the other Council member who was a Republican quit the party over the gay marriage issue and champions various liberal causes such as an increased minimum wage, I would say that D.C. is certainly populated by liberals. If you live in the city, see the people who live here, and see how local politics are discussed, you'd have no doubt in your mind that most of the people in D.C. are liberals.

As to your point about civil rights, I'm not sure what you're getting at. My characterization of D.C.'s population had nothing to do with civil rights.

[Wrath]

Originally Posted by Wrath

The National Academy of Science issued this report just a few days ago.

Sorry, that link was not the report but a Lott op/ed column.

Here's the NAS press release.

[Ravenman]

I just noted this story about the declining murder rates in several large cities, including Washington DC and New York City. It says that NYC has its lowest murder rate in four decades, but it still has very restrictive gun laws.

Now, how can we buy the proposition that restrictive gun laws lead to more crime? In New York, under its restrictive gun laws, first there was a dramatic increase in murders in the '70s and '80s, and now there's been a dramatic decline that been unfolding for more than 10 years.... but there was no change in the gun laws! Isn't this evidence that gun laws are a very minor part of the trends that dictate crime rates in particular locations?

[artcramp]

The argument for whether or not firearms decrease crime is moot, and will not be proven one way or another until sociology matures considerably as a science.

They are one factor, when several factors may be present, including number of police officers, employment, anti-gang programs et cetera.

Both sides can argue about this until they are blue in the face, and nothing will ever be changed or proven.

Facts:

Guns are useful and at times necessary for those who live outside of urban settings.

Gun control has made it only *slightly* more difficult for criminals to obtain guns. Stolen guns can't be pawned etc. because of the trail, so they are usually bought and sold at *reduced* prices from dealers who need to move them quick and make a little profit.

The founding fathers believed it necessary to protect the right of the citizenry to bear arms. Times have changed, but the concepts that this country were founded on were created for good reasons from hard won wisdom.

Soldiers at war who are usually pressed for equipment have historically received weapons and armor from families to preserve not only our freedoms but the lives of their loved ones. How do you think the Tommy Gun got the moniker "trench broom"?

[Arwin]

Originally Posted by Renob

Perhaps, but correlation is not causation. Poor people are more likely to engage in violence, but does that mean that being poor made them engage in violence, or does it mean that the same factors that made them poor also make them prone to violence?

No, that's true. For one, there has to be social inequality or racial segregation, or similar causes for social disintegration, and there has to be something to gain (socio-economic inequality).

I grew up in a poor rural area that had lots of guns. There was very little gun violence (although there was a lot of physical violence -- spousal abuse, fights at school, etc.). Simply being poor and having guns available does not lead to the type of violence that plagues D.C.

Still more than where I live, which is not D.C. It's not even the States. I've never even been in the U.S.

Actually, that's completely false. Gun accidents among children is exceptionally rare, as is accidental shootings of the sort you describe.

It's not. More children die from gun accidents in the U.S. than criminals shoot each other here, even corrected for the different population sizes. Check infoplease or a similar statistics site.

What part of DC do you live in? That's a bit odd.

I understand your confusion. I've lived in the Netherlands all my life, and one year in Stockholm, Sweden.

Do you mean to say that there are few gun related deaths in your area of town? I'm a little confused by this statement. Could you plesae clarify.

As above. I was talking about the Netherlands, sorry for this not being clear - I thought I added this to my profile and it would show in the top right corner of my posts so I didn't mention this specifically.

It is also one of the reasons why I do think poverty is also a factor - the Netherlands ranks very high in low poverty figures.

I must disagree. Perhaps if we had a national ban on all gun sales and a wholesale confiscation of guns, and if everyone actually turned in their guns, your scenario would play out. However, the number of guns in circulation in the U.S. today, and the fact that they will never be banned (leaving aside the whole debate that arises about whether or not they should be banned), makes your scenario wishful thinking, at best.

That's turning the issue around, stating that my scenario can't play out because guns will never be outlawed. Kind of a moot point.

As it is, D.C. will never see a reduction in illegal guns because guns are so easily obtained from outside D.C. and brought in. D.C.'s gun ban has had almost 30 years to work. It clearly hasn't reduced gun violence at all.

That's the exact same kind of logic countries around the Netherlands used to use to criticise our drug policies.

It's time to repeal this ineffective law and let law abiding citizens like myself own a means to defend my home.

A slightly side-tracked question, have you ever needed one for this purpose yourself?

Again, I don't think that's scientifically proven at all. Sure, poor people are more likely to commit crime, but it doesn't logically follow that they commit crime because they are poor. Correlation, as I said above, is not causation.

No it is not, and it is a mistake often made. But a bigger mistake would be to reverse it and go back to saying that the cause is simply that some people are evil, others are good. I thought we evolved beyond that by now, but I keep being proven wrong.

[Arwin]

I collected some data in an earlier discussion that I thought I might as well share here:

--------
Here's some numbers for you:

In the Netherlands an estimated 2% of households have a firearm (1999). We have 'only' 70 deaths by firearm. In Belgium, an estimated 20% of households carry a gun. They had 384 deaths by firearm in 1999. In the U.S., an estimated 40% households carry a gun. They had about 30.000 deaths by firearm in 1999 (and 100.000 wounded).

Now of course we need to correct these numbers for population. U.S. were about 275.000.000 then, the Netherlands about 15.500.000 and Belgium about 10.000.000. That makes 1 in 9000 for the U.S., 1 in 26.000 for Belgium, and 1 in 220.000 for the Netherlands.

Combine the number of deaths by gun we have with the percentage of gun owners, and compare that to the U.S. (which we often do) and you will understand we have a hard time understanding people telling themselves the world is a safer place with guns around.

EDIT- some U.S. figures here:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764212.html

bringing in another area where the US feels relatively careless, traffic related deaths, and comparing them with gun-related deaths:
------------
"Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among Americans 1-34 years old. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, the total societal cost of crashes exceeds $200 billion annually. Contributing to the death toll are alcohol, speed, lack of belt use and other problematic driver behaviors. Death rates vary widely by vehicle type, driver age and gender, and other factors."

So, these 40.000 deaths per year are acceptable, right? Let's not do anything about them, people need to drive to work and stuff, so the benefits far outweigh the costs. Oh, but wait. It's illegal to drink and drive. It's illegal to break the speed limit, it's illegal not to use a seatbelt, etc.

Are we being that careful about guns? I'm not so sure. But what are the benefits of carrying a gun? In terms of crime prevention, murder being the most serious crime, you tell me. If you were to choose between having a car or having a rifle, what would you choose? Which one is really useful? Which one is worth all those deaths.

------
when someone claimed this policy didn't work in the UK, I replied this:

Figures, please. I can't find any to confirm. Rather the opposite, such as this interesting footnote in an online article:

[2] France, for example, has a higher proportion of households that have firearms than the U.K, and consequently has around 6 firearm deaths per 100,000 people, compared to the U.K that has a rate of less than 1 death per 100,000. See the table of firearm ownership and deaths in industrialised countries in Chapter 6: After the Smoke Clears: Assessing the Effects of Small Arms Availability of the Small Arms Survey 2001: Profiling the Problem, compiled by the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva (Oxford, Oxford University Press: http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/Year...S2001Ch6_en.pdf, published 2001/accessed 15.04.02), p.1.

http://www.ex.ac.uk/politics/pol_da.../new_page_5.htm

Also, you're claim that it didn't do anything good for the U.K. actually has little bearing on our current discussion, because there were never many guns to begin with:

"Australia's rate of firearm-related homicide is 0.4 per 100,000 population compared to 0.7 in Canada and 6.3 in the United States of America. In the United Kingdom, however, the firearm homicide rate is 0.1 per 100,000. The culture of firearms is less pervasive in the UK."

http://www.aic.gov.au/media/961104.html

[JXJohns]

Originally Posted by enipla

What seems odd to me, is that the usually pro-gun conservatives are the ones that will eventually chip away at the 2nd.

I would say that there are some pro-gun conservatives that may chip away at 2nd amendment rights. There are plenty of anti-gun liberals however who would do well more than chip away at the 2nd...

[Razorsharp]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

I lived for a few months in an apartment building with certifiably insane crack users in a neighboring apartment -- and I was glad they had no access to weapons.

Whaddya mean, "glad they had no access to weapons"? Cause the legislature passed a law outlawing the possession of firearms? (Oh, the legislature cares so much about us and our safety, that they passed a law. We should all feel so warm and comfy now.)

Sheesh, do you actually assume, because they passed a law, that a bunch of "certifiably insane crack users" ain't gonna packin' heat? Isn't that a bit naive?

Do you not realize that a law against the possession of firearms, only disarms those who are law-abiding?

Hey, and while we're at it, do you know what the only crime a gun is responsible for?

It's to make a previously law-abiding citizen a criminal, with the passage of a law that makes it a crime to possess a firearm.

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by Razorsharp

Whaddya mean, "glad they had no access to weapons"? Cause the legislature passed a law outlawing the possession of firearms? (Oh, the legislature cares so much about us and our safety, that they passed a law. We should all feel so warm and comfy now.)

Sheesh, do you actually assume, because they passed a law, that a bunch of "certifiably insane crack users" ain't gonna packin' heat? Isn't that a bit naive?

Do you not realize that a law against the possession of firearms, only disarms those who are law-abiding?

Hey, and while we're at it, do you know what the only crime a gun is responsible for?

It's to make a previously law-abiding citizen a criminal, with the passage of a law that makes it a crime to possess a firearm.

You know, an intelligent and courteous poster asked, a few posts down from where you quoted me, what I meant by this, and I actually answered him.

It might be a good idea for you to read the thread, and then to emulate him in how you conduct yourself.

[buttonjockey308]

Originally Posted by MEBuckner

Well, if the media reports are to be believed, the San Francisco proposal is not to license but (according to NPR) to completely ban possession of handguns by anyone except for "police, security guards, and military personnel".

They've done it in Chicago. You cannot legally possess a handgun within the Chicago city limits, unless you are otherwise licensed by the State of Illinois to do so. They did it (those crafty bastards) by saying you have to register your handgun with the city, and then ceasing to issue registrations.

That doesn't keep the mutts on the streets from having handguns though. Nope, sure doesn't.

[enipla]

Originally Posted by Arwin

A slightly side-tracked question, have you ever needed one for this purpose yourself?

This question was not directed at me, but I would like to address it.

I think the answer is obvious - Deterrent.

The problem with quoting crime statistics is that we will never be able to put a number on how many crimes did not happen because a homeowner may have a gun.

I live in a pretty isolated area. There are perhaps 200 homes on about 3000 acres in this valley. In the 12 years I have lived here, I have not heard of a single robbery or burglary. I would guess that 90% of the households in the valley have at the very least a hunting rifle or shotgun.

Personally, I have used a gun to scare off bears that would not be intimidated by yelling at them, or banging pots and pans together. I’ve done that three times. The report from a large caliber gun is the only thing that seems to get there attention. And while it’s dangerous to be outside when a bear is around even with a gun, a gun is a hell of a lot better protection than pots n’ pans.

[Monocracy]

Originally Posted by Abbie Carmichael

Why is it, then, that West Virginia remains a relatively safe place to live while DC is so dangerous?

population density

Originally Posted by Arwin

Here's some numbers for you:

In the Netherlands an estimated 2% of households have a firearm (1999). We have 'only' 70 deaths by firearm. In Belgium, an estimated 20% of households carry a gun. They had 384 deaths by firearm in 1999. In the U.S., an estimated 40% households carry a gun. They had about 30.000 deaths by firearm in 1999 (and 100.000 wounded).

Now of course we need to correct these numbers for population. U.S. were about 275.000.000 then, the Netherlands about 15.500.000 and Belgium about 10.000.000. That makes 1 in 9000 for the U.S., 1 in 26.000 for Belgium, and 1 in 220.000 for the Netherlands.

Combine the number of deaths by gun we have with the percentage of gun owners, and compare that to the U.S. (which we often do) and you will My final opinion is that understand we have a hard time understanding people telling themselves the world is a safer place with guns around.

If you cherry-pick numbers, you can make the stats say whatever you want. Here, i'll do it to. In Switzerland, 27.2% of households have guns, and the homicide rate by gun (per 100,000) is .46. France has 22.6% of households and a rate of .55. Belgium 16.6% and .87. Northern Ireland, 8.4% and 3.55. So in these cases, homicide rates go down as gun ownership increases.

Check out Table 1 on this site: http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html Even though it's a pro-gun control site, the chart doesn't support their position. Gun related deaths seem better correlated with the society and cultural of a particular country rather than the percentage of households with guns.