# Come one, come all: Gun Control revisited, revisited
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-one-come-all-gun-control-revisited-revisited/43061
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [November 28, 2000, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-one-come-all-gun-control-revisited-revisited/43061 "2000-11-28T18:41:06Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 9
### Author:  [@The\_Crimson\_Hipster\_Dufuz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Crimson_Hipster_Dufuz)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2000, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-one-come-all-gun-control-revisited-revisited/43061/161 "2000-12-01T17:36:58Z")
> [@](#):
>
> So am I to understand
I am skeptical, to say the least
> [@](#):
>
> that your answer is go buy one and if you can’t afford one legally buy it black market.
I doubt you’ll find things more cheaply on the black market than you would legally, at least that’s always been my experience.
---
### Author:  [@Joe\_Cool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Cool)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2000, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-one-come-all-gun-control-revisited-revisited/43061/162 "2000-12-01T17:44:02Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by jumblemind \*
> **…Once again, you have tainted some good points with an outrageous assertion, Joe\_Cool. This sounds like the statement of a white, property-owning male. I certainly agree that some police actions, particularly road blocks and “probable causes”, have seen unconstitutional (IMO) elevation recently. However, these sort of things were not even a legal issue to be considered 100 years ago. Police could do any of these things (well, maybe not pull you over:)) without judicial scrutiny. And if you were non-white…good grief. How can you even make this argument…**
Hey, I admit I botched my Germany argument, so lay off. This one is valid. Actually, I am neither white, nor property owning. Police road blocks, no knock warrants, seizure of property (particularly by the DEA) without due process, etc are precisely the type of things that I’m talking about. True, many of these don’t affect me **because** I don’t own property, but that does not make them any more right. I understand your feelings about this point, but it is a valid one. A law doesn’t have to benefit me personally for it to be right. Anything firearm related is rife with administrative costs, permits, licenses, etc, etc, etc. You can’t buy a gun without filling out a bunch of forms (which MAY be reasonable if you have a trustworthy government), you can’t shoot hardly anywhere, you can go to jail for having a knife on your person…
Don’t misunderstand me. I know there have been some major strides in some areas, such as racial equality, gender equality, child labor, etc.
But liberty is being squeezed steadily. Some of the other rights I’m whining about the loss of, (great grammar, I know “isn’t that the guy off in whose trailer they were whacking?”) are…[ul][li]PRIVACY.[/li]There was never a need to protect that in the old days, because if you didn’t want to be overheard, you could walk into the woods. But now with the advent of electronics and sophisticated intelligence gathering equipment, there really is no such thing anymore. You can be monitored nearly any place, nearly any time.
[li]Freedom of speech.[/li]Any regulation of speech worries me. [list][li]Some kids are being [suspended and prosecuted](http://civilliberty.about.com/newsissues/civilliberty/cs/schoolsandspeech/index.htm) for expressing anger by writing violent stories. Imagine if Stephen King or Clive Barker had grown up now.[_]Other kids are being rewarded for “turning in” the oddballs for looking or acting differently, under the guise of spotting potentially dangerous behavior([WAVE America](http://www.waveamerica.com)). [_][Hate speech](http://civilliberty.about.com/newsissues/civilliberty/library/weekly/aa101898.htm) is a popular term now, with an alarming number of people who support its being regulated or banned. And God help you if you don’t agree with one of the groups currently in the limelight (right, Esprix?)[Flag burning](http://civilliberty.about.com/cs/flagdesecration/index.htm) is under attack, and while I don’t condone the act itself, it is a powerful means of making a statement, and should not be outlawed.[/li][/ul]
[li]Freedom of the press.[/li]Hardly a day goes by that I don’t read or hear a news item about another attempt to [censor the Internet](http://civilliberty.about.com/newsissues/civilliberty/cs/freespeechnet/index.htm).
[li]Freedom of assembly.[/li][ul][li]In Albuquerque an “anti gang” law was passed making it illegal for teenagers to congregate in groups larger than [5 or so, I don’t remember exactly].[/li][li]People are harassed by police and other government agencies for being part of “undesirable” groups: Skinheads, neo-nazis, etc. While the groups may be disgusting examples of humanity gone awry, they still have the right to assemble and associate with whomever they chose.[/ul][/li][li]Gun rights.[/li]4 pages on this thread alone. 'nuff said?
[li]Excessive force with little or no accountability.[/li]Waco. Ruby ridge. Rodney King. Amadou Diallo (41 shots fired and only 19 hits?! And you say _civilians_ don’t know how to handle their weapons?). High colonic via nightstick, courtesy NYPD.
[/list]
So yeah, there have been some great changes. But the losses indicate a really dangerous (in my opinion) downtrend where Liberty is concerned. And it doesn’t just affect rich white guys. But even if it did, so what? Does that make it ok?
I promise to try to stay on topic after this post. I’m tryingi really hard to be coherent and make sense, but I’ve been at work for just under 24 hours now. Go easy on me when you attack my reasoning on this one.
---
### Author:  [@PeeQueue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PeeQueue)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2000, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-one-come-all-gun-control-revisited-revisited/43061/163 "2000-12-01T17:49:43Z")
In my experience, stolen, bootlegged, or otherwise unregistered or unauthorized goods are always cheaper than their legal counterparts.
PeeQueue
---
### Author:  [@justwannano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justwannano)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2000, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-one-come-all-gun-control-revisited-revisited/43061/164 "2000-12-01T18:14:50Z")
You’re a hard guy to pin down to a Yes or No aren’t you.
So am I to understand that your answer is go buy one and if you can’t afford one legally buy it black market if it is cheaper?
Yes or No.
---
### Author:  [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2000, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-one-come-all-gun-control-revisited-revisited/43061/165 "2000-12-01T18:59:00Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by The Crimson Hipster Dufuz \*
> **Well, so then you produce the study showing gravitational effects which indicate the presence of invisible elephant sized bodies in orbit. I say "well, you made up your measurements."**
And I respond that the numbers were accurate because they were gathered by Bhagwan Bernie of the Church of the Invisible Winged Elephants. Have I satisfied my burden?
> [@](#):
>
> **You do, you’re countering a factual supposition with speculation.**
Countering speculation (for, what else is a “supposition”, whether dressed up as “factual” or not) with speculation? Seems fair to me. Thank you for admitting that your faith in Kellerman’s numbers is based on nothing more than an assumption.
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*"Methods. After each homicide, we obtained data from the police or medical examiner and interviewed a proxy for the victim. The proxies’ answers were compared with those of control subjects who were matched to the victims according to neighborhood, sex, race, and age range. Crude and adjusted odds ratios were calculated with matched-pairs methods. "
>
> The NEJM says he matched according to neighborhood. That’s going to carry, until you show us how his controls are inappropriate. I don’t think you can.\*\*
From the [article](http://rkba.org/research/kellerman/kellerman-schaffer) I cited previously:
> [@](#):
>
> Matching control pairs is an attempt to get the each case and matched control be in the same subgroup - when the population is divided into subgroups. If this is done, then it appears that the Mantel-Haenszel analysis will produce an association calculation which is free of the confounding demonstrated above. However it is not clear that the Kellerman, et al matching does select controls from the same subgroups as the cases. The control selection was done using a random selection starting outside a “one-block avoidance zone” away from the case homicide, and the matching criteria did not include any life-style or related indicators.
>
> …risk subgroup factors (drug dealing, violent criminal events, violently abusive family relationships, etc.) often are fine-grained. They vary between different families in one apartment building, and certainly vary between different families in a block. Therefore choosing a control who lives 1 or more blocks away will not assure matching with respect to the sub-group. For a minority sub-group …the chances good are that homicides in the high risk group will be matched with low risk group controls.
Your response?
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*No, I attack the body of his work, general standards of reliability, etc… I make no speculation as to his personal life at all \*\*
Christ, I quoted Kleck because the statistics were convenient, and you admit that the statistics are valid. You still feel you should make a disparaging remark. What the hell is wrong with you?
> [@](#):
>
> **I didn’t read every single case, I admit.**
Don’t let me catch you trying to intimidate people with a pile of irrelevant authority again.
> [@](#):
>
> **The burden could be shifted to the state, since after all you’re fufilling your milita obligations, or whatever.**
Call me a pessimist with cruel yet handsome eyes if you will, but as a practical matter I doubt the non-gun buying public will allow their tax dollars go to subsidizing education for people who want to buy guns. Libraries, sure, but not gun education. Gun owners, particularly hunters, have typically shouldered the costs of gun ownership and use themselves, and likely the people will see no need to change that.
> [@](#):
>
> **I am also not terribly sure how long I will entertain “well, but it’s not fair the poor don’t have the same access” from people whom I imagine to be generally free-marketeers. Name me even one other thing the poor have the same access to as the wealthy.**
The polls. No one gets more than one vote, not even Bill Gates.
> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > > [@](#):
> > >
> > > “a law banning a certain type of firearm was upheld on the grounds that the weapon had no useful relation to the militia.” I think you’d be better off complaining that semi-automatic weapons are really just the thing a militia man would want, and how useful are they really for robbing 7-11’s?
> >
> > \*\*Did you really mean “semi-automatic” and not “fully automatic”? There’s a difference, ya know; semi-autos are perfectly legal to own, and highly useful for robbing 7-11s.
> >
> > I might be misunderstanding the point you’re trying to make here. Go ahead and clarify it if you like.
>
> Generally long guns are military weapons, and useful for killing lots of people at once, or killing people from a great distance. Since they are harder to concel than hand guns. Walking around with an AK-47, you know, you’re easy to spot. Walk in the bank with your M-16, you might not make it to the counter. However, for some reason, this is the kind of thing that’s illegal, while .38’s, which are mostly useful for robbing gas stations, are generally more legal. If you can’t defend your home with a shotgun, you’re better off putting your hands on top of your head, saying “please don’t shoot me” and showing the burglar where you keep the silverwear.\*\*
Erm, “silverware”. Unless you’re Sammy Davis Jr. or something. Anyway, long guns are typically used by armies for their accuracy; most military combat takes place over a pretty considerable distance. By contrast, an in-home encounter would be over a very short distance, and quite probably in cramped conditions as well; you don’t need the accuracy of a rifle, and a long barrel would make maneuvering difficult. A handgun is the better choice, in most circumstances, for home defense.
It still appears that you don’t know the difference between semi-automatic and full automatic; the earlier quote would make more sense if you’d said, “…complaining that fully-automatic weapons are really just the thing…” Could you explain your understanding of these terms?
---
### Author:  [@jumblemind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jumblemind)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2000, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-one-come-all-gun-control-revisited-revisited/43061/166 "2000-12-01T19:29:02Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Joe\_Cool \*
> \*\*I’m trying really hard to be coherent and make sense, but I’ve been at work for just under 24 hours now. Go easy on me when you attack my reasoning on this one. \*\*
I apologize for pouncing, especially on someone breaking his back for the Man.🙂
All I’m saying is that things, overall, are better than they used to be. Of course, there have been trends lately that are disturbing, such as zero tolerance and all of the other points you listed. Personally, I like to think much of this can be attributed to growing pains. Our world is constantly reshaping itself due to rapidly advancing technology. We don’t always get things right the first time, or even the tenth time (eg, Florida election laws).
But while I do agree very much with your individual points, including abuse of power by police and the ingress of the CIA, et al. into our lives, I fail to see how a well-armed populace is any kind of solution. IMO, the only situation where personal arms will help you at all is in the case of total anarchy–if everything breaks down. This, of course, is a recurring point in the pro-gun arguments being made. I say again, the system isn’t going to break down because it would hurt the market. I can foresee absolutely no situation in which any person (or 1984-style government) can benefit from upsetting the constituent consumers so. If anyone can give a plausible scenario, please present it.
---
### Author:  [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2000, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-one-come-all-gun-control-revisited-revisited/43061/167 "2000-12-01T19:35:21Z")
> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by **Joe\_Cool** _
>
> [Hate speech](http://civilliberty.about.com/newsissues/civilliberty/library/weekly/aa101898.htm) is a popular term now, with an alarming number of people who support its being regulated or banned. And God help you if you don’t agree with one of the groups currently in the limelight (right, Esprix?)
Huh? What? What do you mean? What are you asking me?
Esprix
---
### Author:  [@The\_Crimson\_Hipster\_Dufuz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Crimson_Hipster_Dufuz)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2000, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-one-come-all-gun-control-revisited-revisited/43061/168 "2000-12-01T19:45:17Z")
Here’s one that’s funny:
> [@](#):
>
> Otherwise I guess Switzerland would be rife with wanton violence. Right?
Percent of households with a handgun, 1991 (1)
United States 29%
Switzerland 14
Finland 7
Germany 7
Belgium 6
France 6
Canada 5
Norway 4
Europe 4
Australia 2
Netherlands 2
United Kingdom 1
Handgun murders (1992) (2)
```
Handgun 1992 Handgun Murder
```
## Country Murders Population Rate (per 100,000)
United States 13,429 254,521,000 5.28
Switzerland 97 6,828,023 1.42
Canada 128 27,351,509 0.47
Sweden 36 8,602,157 0.42
Australia 13 17,576,354 0.07
United Kingdom 33 57,797,514 0.06
Japan 60 124,460,481 0.05
Ooops.
[http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/L-switzerland.htm](http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/L-switzerland.htm)
(Cited to: 1. Where We Stand, Michael Wolff, Peter Rutten & Albert F. Bayers III and the World Bank Research Team (New York: Bantam Books, 1992), pp. 297,289.
1. Handgun murders: Handgun Control, Inc. Population Figures: July 1992 count for each country as reported by CIA World Factbook, 1992. )
1992 could be an unusual year, of course…well, let’s see…Here’s this [http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/pubs/electronicversions/pg/pgwin00/article1.pdf](http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/pubs/electronicversions/pg/pgwin00/article1.pdf)
Here’s a good study by Killias suggesting a moderate correlation between gun ownership and gun homicide, and a strong one between gun ownership and suicide, although it probably goes away if you were allowed to exclude the United States, a high homicide, high gun ownership state, and Japan and the UK, low homicide, low gun ownership states. I am not at all sure that’s appropriate.
[http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpb/lcdc/publicat/cdic/cdic191/cd191d\_e.html#tab2](http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpb/lcdc/publicat/cdic/cdic191/cd191d_e.html#tab2)
Here’s Lambert, again, with a good archive and a generally higher level of scholarship than I have seen here (note reply to Klecks misfounded attacks on Killias)
[http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/archive/international/index.html](http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/archive/international/index.html)
Swiss gun ownership is comparable to Canada, so is the homicide rate.
No doubt both sides here will find the following supportive:
[http://www.gunlab.com.ru/summary.html](http://www.gunlab.com.ru/summary.html)
"No handguns, no full-auto. Very rare exception – retired high-rank officers guns given in reward, usually such guns carry rich engraving and golden plates with officer name, congratulations, etc; it’s only exception when civilian given license for the rest of life; "
“Shotguns and rifles available, but you need a license to buy and keep them. License can be obtained (if you don’t have any criminal records) without problems, except price. This hobby eats hoards of money. But all weapons must be kept in the safe with gun and cartriges apart, and you can transport them only in the disassembled condition, so they are useless as tools of self-defense. Ugh. Well, there is a hole in the law 🙂 “Saiga” shotguns (AK-like .410 and 20 ga) are “disassembled” when you remove magazine. So you can drop “Saiga” on the seat and hide magazines in the pocket. Everything is ok and you can always insert magazine pretty quickly. But transporting hunting weapons when season is closed is difficult and can put you in the trouble. Self-defense is not an excuse when it comes to firearms outside your home! Note, that you can keep shotgun at home for self-defense, but only on your own property, i.e. only in your flat. Steel entrace door and outer grating on windows protects better than License must be renewed every 5 years;”
---
### Author:  [@The\_Crimson\_Hipster\_Dufuz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Crimson_Hipster_Dufuz)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2000, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-one-come-all-gun-control-revisited-revisited/43061/169 "2000-12-01T20:15:18Z")
> [@](#):
>
> This one is valid.
No, it isn’t. There’s a lot more freedom nowadays than there used to be, say, 100 years ago.
> [@](#):
>
> PRIVACY.
> There was never a need to protect that in the old days,
In the old days, people lived in small communities where everyone knew your life history.
> [@](#):
>
> because if you didn’t want to be overheard, you could walk into the woods. But now with the advent of electronics and sophisticated intelligence gathering equipment, there really is no such thing anymore. You can be monitored nearly any place, nearly any time.
Most data assembled on you is done by marketers assembling demographic information.
> [@](#):
>
> Freedom of speech.
Wow. How embarassed i am for you, Joe.
[http://www.freedomforum.org/first/timeline97.asp](http://www.freedomforum.org/first/timeline97.asp). Read that.
1918
Congress passes the Sedition Act, which forbids spoken or printed criticism of the U.S. government, the Constitution or the flag.
1989
In Texas. v. Johnson, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that burning the American flag is a constitutionally protected form of free speech.
See if you can tell the class what the story behind “falsely shout fire in a crowded theater” is.
> [@](#):
>
> Any regulation of speech worries me.
Really? Child pornography? Slander? Copyright infringement? False Advertising? Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater?
> [@](#):
>
> So yeah, there have been some great changes. But the losses indicate a really dangerous (in my opinion) downtrend where Liberty is concerned.
100 years ago women couldn’t vote, creationism was taught as science in schools, and you could be jailed for simply criticizing the government.
> [@](#):
>
> And it doesn’t just affect rich white guys. But even if it did, so what? Does that make it ok?
I dunno…are the rich white guys mainly complaining about the erosion of their “right” to call them “niggers” to their faces? I’d say that’s okay.
---
### Author:  [@The\_Crimson\_Hipster\_Dufuz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Crimson_Hipster_Dufuz)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2000, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-one-come-all-gun-control-revisited-revisited/43061/170 "2000-12-01T20:38:55Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Explain please how renting an apartment, in itself, increases one’s expectation of being murdered 4.4 times.
I have no idea, I’ll ask Lambert if I get a chance.
> [@](#):
>
> Thank you for admitting that your faith in Kellerman’s numbers is based on nothing more than an assumption.
An assumption of faith in his ability to apply decent scientific controls, sure. Don’t worry, I’ll get back to you on this. Meanwhile, you could, you know, stun us all and actually do your own homework, Max.
> [@](#):
>
> Christ, I quoted Kleck because the statistics were convenient, and you admit that the statistics are valid.
If Kleck is involved, the analysis drawn, though, almost certainly is. I don’t recall admitted any Kleck statistic was valid, since he likes to make up his own datasets. Care to reiterate? This UBB thing gets a bit messy after a point.
> [@](#):
>
> Don’t let me catch you trying to intimidate people with a pile of irrelevant authority again.
it seems you’re wiggling away from the basic idea about how the federal courts generally read the second.
> [@](#):
>
> The polls. No one gets more than one vote, not even Bill Gates.
I dunno, it seems a certain political party is trying to have at least a few people’s votes excluded.
> [@](#):
>
> By contrast, an in-home encounter would be over a very short distance, and quite probably in cramped conditions as well; you don’t need the accuracy of a rifle, and a long barrel would make maneuvering difficult. A handgun is the better choice, in most circumstances, for home defense.
A shotgun is perfect for home defense. You’ll hit anything you aim at, and the noise itself is obvious and intimidating.
Yeah, I should’ve typed “silverware.” Tra-la.
> [@](#):
>
> It still appears that you don’t know the difference between semi-automatic and full automatic; the earlier quote would make more sense if you’d said, “…complaining that fully-automatic weapons are really just the thing…”
In any case, it seems the weapons subject to the most restrictions are the ones which have the most relevancy to a well regulated militia, or whatever the language in Miller was. A BAR, mortars…
> [@](#):
>
> Could you explain your understanding of these terms?
Semi-automatic is you get one shot for each pull of the trigger, but the mechanical action of the gun loads the next cartridge. Automatic is the weapon fires continuously when the trigger is held. At least some of these may also be set to fire in smaller several shot bursts.
---
### Author:  [@The\_Crimson\_Hipster\_Dufuz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Crimson_Hipster_Dufuz)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2000, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-one-come-all-gun-control-revisited-revisited/43061/171 "2000-12-01T20:48:08Z")
> [@](#):
>
> In my experience, stolen, bootlegged, or otherwise unregistered or unauthorized goods are always cheaper than their legal counterparts.
Another reason I don’t attribute these quotes is I do not know I could resist the temptation to make humorous variations on everyone’s name, and think of the possibilities rife in “peequeue.”
In any case, from the above I will now assume peeq has no experience with purchasing illicit drugs, but…
A certain elderly relative of mine purchases an analgesic narcotic which is widely abused recreationally. 40 of them cost her ten dollars from the pharmacist. I believe the going rate from your friendly neighborhood dope man is a buck-fitty each.
As for wanno, hmmm…the decision to break a law you do not like must come only after great personal examination, and with the full intent to suffer the attendant punishment as a form of civil disobedience, as Dr. Martin Luther King, jr. describes in “Letter from Birmingham Jail.”
Or, you know, the super-kind BC chronic is in town. Say, peeq, what do you think chiba would retail for if the possesion and sale were legalized?
---
### Author:  [@Screwtape](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Screwtape)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2000, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-one-come-all-gun-control-revisited-revisited/43061/172 "2000-12-01T20:50:22Z")
> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by jumblemind \*
> …I say again, the system isn’t going to break down because it would hurt the market._\*
Oh, it must be nice to live in such a fuzzy-bunny world.
[one](http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/public_policy/subjects/pce1030/wwwboard/messages/205.html)
[two](http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/public_policy/subjects/pce1030/wwwboard/messages/214.html).
That’s from someone who was there. I lived a few miles north at the time, and so I didn’t go to see firsthand. I had a friend who lived there, and while a lot of stuff was happening, nothing happened to him or his building. Of course, he was pretty visibly on the roof with a rifle.
---
### Author:  [@justwannano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justwannano)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2000, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-one-come-all-gun-control-revisited-revisited/43061/173 "2000-12-01T20:53:42Z")
I only asked what she is to do. You brought up the black market.
Yes or No
---
### Author:  [@jumblemind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jumblemind)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2000, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-one-come-all-gun-control-revisited-revisited/43061/174 "2000-12-01T21:49:44Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Screwtape \*
> **Oh, it must be nice to live in such a fuzzy-bunny world.**
I think you missed my original assertion, that economics will prevent the overthrow of our current political system.
I ask for an example of what could happen, and you give me the LA riots? I can see the point of indirect protection from Government in your Government-abuse-leading-to-anarchy angle, but it doesn’t hold. First, could you possibly envision this taking place on a national level? We have two politicians right now who are trying to “seize” the Presidency, and we have not even a hint of any kind of uprising. Second, where in your example is the Government attacking the people in a way that only guns are protecting them? Ah, yes, indirectly, the government caused a situation that infringed on some people’s rights (store owners, et al). However, if I assume a little the pro-gun logic I can say that this was an anomaly that isn’t significant, like accidental shootings. After all, the Government _did_ correct the situation it created (notice that I am grievously lumping all governments into Government), meaning the likelihood of recurrence on any level is very low.
I think America is far too pluralistic for one group to effectively take control in a dictatorship-sort of way so as to call the citizenry up in arms. But if it did, I would shoot the Feds with my rifle. Was your friend’s collection of semi-automatic handguns and Assault-Rifles protecting him from looters? I said _arsenal_ in my argument, meaning that I oppose an unfettered gun market.
Yes, you presented an anomalous situation. I asked for a scenario involving the entire country, since the pro-gun arguments often cite protecting themselves from the Government (ie, citing dictatorial usurpation in other countries and British control of colonial America) as a reason for proliferating guns in the populace.
---
### Author:  [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2000, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-one-come-all-gun-control-revisited-revisited/43061/175 "2000-12-01T22:36:51Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by The Crimson Hipster Dufuz \*
> **I have no idea, I’ll ask Lambert if I get a chance.**
At this point a lesser person than myself might declare victory.
Wait, didn’t you do that earlier?
> [@](#):
>
> **An assumption of faith in his ability to apply decent scientific controls, sure. Don’t worry, I’ll get back to you on this. Meanwhile, you could, you know, stun us all and actually do your own homework, Max.**
My homework’s done. Sounds like you’ve accepted that the burden is yours. I’ll be right here when you have an answer.
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Christ, I quoted Kleck because the statistics were convenient, and you admit that the statistics are valid.
>
> I don’t recall admitted any Kleck statistic was valid, since he likes to make up his own datasets. Care to reiterate? This UBB thing gets a bit messy after a point.\*\*
The statistic I quoted from a work of Kleck’s concerned the percentage of homicides that occur in the home. As I recall, Kleck’s numbers closely corresponded with Kellerman’s, indicating that around 24% of homicides occur in the home. I originally brought up the numbers because, to quote myself, “[It s]eems intellectually dishonest to me to focus on such a small subset of all gun deaths [that is, deaths in the home] in an attempt to force a conclusion that ‘gun ownership is dangerous’.”
Do you dispute my statement?
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Don’t let me catch you trying to intimidate people with a pile of irrelevant authority again.
>
> it seems you’re wiggling away from the basic idea about how the federal courts generally read the second.\*\*
The courts generally, it seems, believe that the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms is not absolute, but subject to restrictions. Still, no court has held that an absolute ban on firearms would not offend the Constitution. I believe I’ve said this before, yet you keep asking me to repeat it…
> [@](#):
>
> **I dunno, it seems a certain political party is trying to have at least a few people’s votes excluded.**
Are they excluding the votes on the basis of the voter’s personal wealth? Remember the original issue: equal access of the rich and the poor to some resource.
> [@](#):
>
> **A shotgun is perfect for home defense. You’ll hit anything you aim at, and the noise itself is obvious and intimidating.**
Your two points are true, but the shotgun wielder will need sufficient space to maneuver the gun into shooting position (a couple of feet of clearance, at least) due to the length of the barrel. Not always easy in a doorway or hallway. Plus, a shotgun is nigh-useless, except as a club, in a close encounter. A shotgun is a good choice for some homes, but certainly not perfect for all.
> [@](#):
>
> **In any case, it seems the weapons subject to the most restrictions are the ones which have the most relevancy to a well regulated militia, or whatever the language in Miller was. A BAR, mortars…**
Legislatures are stupid that way, California’s in particular. Their restrictions puzzle me. I mean, honestly, what difference does a “conspicuously protruding pistol grip” make? They’re banning on the basis of “it looks scary”.
---
### Author:  [@justwannano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justwannano)
#### Post date: [December 2, 2000, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-one-come-all-gun-control-revisited-revisited/43061/176 "2000-12-02T15:30:53Z")
Well Crimson isn’t answering my question.
So let me recap what I understood that he said.
He feels that handguns should be so expensive that the street dope dealer cannot afford one.
My comment was that he didn’t understand the consequences of what he was saying.
I asked .in his world what would the single mom in Harlem do to protect herself How about the 67year old retiree in Iowa.
I’ll forgo any smart assed replys here but he suggested the retiree in Iowa could defend himself with a ham sandwich
and the mom could buy a shotgun.
I reminded him that she didn’t have much money.And the shotgun was too large to be used in close quarters.
He replied that she could probably buy a handgun then and mentioned that she could buy things on any street corner for pennies if she couldn’t aford one.answer then that she should buy it legally and if she couldn’t afford it to buy it on the black market.
He has alluded to a yes answer but I need more than that to understand his point of view.
Cmon Crimson answer my question
I asked him if it was his
---
### Author:  [@justwannano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justwannano)
#### Post date: [December 2, 2000, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-one-come-all-gun-control-revisited-revisited/43061/177 "2000-12-02T15:37:53Z")
I asked him if it was his answer that she should buy one legally but if she couldn’t she should buy one on the black market
He has alluded towards a yes answer but I need more than that to understand his point of view.
Cmon crimson answer my question.
---
### Author:  [@The\_Crimson\_Hipster\_Dufuz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Crimson_Hipster_Dufuz)
#### Post date: [December 2, 2000, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-one-come-all-gun-control-revisited-revisited/43061/178 "2000-12-02T17:45:59Z")
> [@](#):
>
> ## quote:
>
> Originally posted by The Crimson Hipster Dufuz
> Guns are great at deterring crime, supposedly…
>
> * * *
>
> Auntie Em!
Help me, Obi Juan Kenobi, you’re my only hope.
WTF? Over…
The page describeing the Kellerman study I’ve presented many times. does a good job of replying to most of the criticisms you present.
---
### Author:  [@The\_Crimson\_Hipster\_Dufuz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Crimson_Hipster_Dufuz)
#### Post date: [December 2, 2000, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-one-come-all-gun-control-revisited-revisited/43061/179 "2000-12-02T18:00:29Z")
> [@](#):
>
> ## Originally posted by The Crimson Hipster Dufuz I have no idea, I’ll ask Lambert if I get a chance.
>
> At this point a lesser person than myself might declare victory.
Don’t sell yourself tall, Max.
> [@](#):
>
> Wait, didn’t you do that earlier?
Yes, I think right around the time we discovered Joe Cool was apparently from some sort of parallel universe with a different history, and the best response I saw to anything I posted was “well, maybe his controls were inappropriate.”
> [@](#):
>
> * * *
>
> ## An assumption of faith in his ability to apply decent scientific controls, sure. Don’t worry, I’ll get back to you on this. Meanwhile, you could, you know, stun us all and actually do your own homework, Max.
>
> My homework’s done.
I forget who was who on the elephant thing, but at some point whoever was disagreeing with it would actually have to put up a similar body of work, perhaps showing that the gravitational effects were measured incorrectly, or cosmology shows us that gravitational effects are not a good source of evidence as to the presence of invisible elephants. In any metered discussion or LD Debate, simply what you yourself have posted, the NEJM abstract would be sufficient to make my case.
> [@](#):
>
> Sounds like you’ve accepted that the burden is yours.
I’ve taken your bastard into my house, to raise because you refuse to, in a manner of speaking. Shouldered the Gun lover’s burdern, so to speak.
> [@](#):
>
> I’ll be right here when you have an answer.
At which point you may except me to be absolutely insufferably in my crowing and bragging.
> [@](#):
>
> * * *
>
> ## quote:
>
> ## Christ, I quoted Kleck because the statistics were convenient, and you admit that the statistics are valid.
>
> ## I don’t recall admitted any Kleck statistic was valid, since he likes to make up his own datasets. Care to reiterate? This UBB thing gets a bit messy after a point.
>
> The statistic I quoted from a work of Kleck’s concerned the percentage of homicides that occur in the home. As I recall, Kleck’s numbers closely corresponded with Kellerman’s, indicating that around 24% of homicides occur in the home. I originally brought up the numbers because, to quote myself, “[It s]eems intellectually dishonest to me to focus on such a small subset of all gun deaths [that is, deaths in the home] in an attempt to force a conclusion that ‘gun ownership is dangerous’.”
>
> Do you dispute my statement?
Yes. Why are they dangerous in the house but not in public? Can you own a gun without storing it in your house?
> [@](#):
>
> * * *
>
> ## quote:
>
> ## Don’t let me catch you trying to intimidate people with a pile of irrelevant authority again.
>
> ## it seems you’re wiggling away from the basic idea about how the federal courts generally read the second.
>
> The courts generally, it seems, believe that the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms is not absolute, but subject to restrictions. Still, no court has held that an absolute ban on firearms would not offend the Constitution. I believe I’ve said this before, yet you keep asking me to repeat it…
It seems you’re wiggling away from the idea that many federal court decisions find there is no individual right at all, although I think I have seen you own up here and there, or that several eminent legal scholars agree. Of course, to be fair, several eminent legal scholars disagree, too.
> [@](#):
>
> ## A shotgun is perfect for home defense. You’ll hit anything you aim at, and the noise itself is obvious and intimidating.
>
> Your two points are true, but the shotgun wielder will need sufficient space to maneuver the gun into shooting position (a couple of feet of clearance, at least) due to the length of the barrel. Not always easy in a doorway or hallway. Plus, a shotgun is nigh-useless, except as a club, in a close encounter. A shotgun is a good choice for some homes, but certainly not perfect for all.
If the bad person has gotten within arms reach before you’ve trained your weapon on him, things may be too late.
Another advantage to a shotgun is its bigger, more obvious, and has thus a better brandishing factor.
---
### Author:  [@justwannano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justwannano)
#### Post date: [December 2, 2000, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-one-come-all-gun-control-revisited-revisited/43061/180 "2000-12-02T19:11:42Z")
I think he’s ignoring me.
Yes or no Crimson
Oh maybe it is because he ignors people who try to get his attention (seven hours without a reply to me but he replied to in three other posts)by typing in all caps
yes or no crimson
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-one-come-all-gun-control-revisited-revisited/43061.md?page=8)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/come-one-come-all-gun-control-revisited-revisited/43061.md?page=10)