Thank you, Max and Wrath.
How did Lott select his data? By using FBI figures alone? I thought the whole argument was that he and his partner went out of their way to collect comprehensive data.
It seems a fair description, after all. Thus, your complaining I linked from a summary which contains neat and effective replies to the criticisms I keep seeing is empty.
Who cares? It certainly implies causation. Weak objection.
What if they’re killed five times as often with lawn mowers, though, but only as often with something else? See?
weak objection, dealt with elsewhere, and more than once. Any explanation but the straightforward one, huh?
A statistical anomoly would disappear with averaging. Certainly organizations which keep track of mortality sort their data demographically, which implies there is a good correllation between age, sex, race or income and risk, and especially age, sex, race, and income and risk.
[ quote]Your linked page says “the study controlled for neighborhoods,”
[quote]
Lambert says the same thing.
I think the burden of proof is on you, now. You’ll have to show his neighborhood controls are inappropriate.
He did. Now, you prove that it’s invalid, see? Let’s see what you got.
Kleck’s work is very, very bad. it just doesn’t match up with crime statistics and the NCVS.
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/archive/dgu/msg00050.html
Kleck. Riot.
No matching control.
Prove it, I think someone said you didn’t just take bald assertions?
I’m trying to set a precedent. You certainly have to admit this is a novel interpretation.
I don’t know that they’re separate.
Of course he was a member of the milita, he was an able bodied man. And the SCOTUS did in fact uphold the law he was prosecuted under, huh?
I see you’re ignoring the language about Miller.
it seems more a procedural issue, a violation of due process, than a second amendment issue, except tangentally.
Uh-huh. Ownership restrictions, huh? Sounds like a pretty niggardly reading of what is asserted as a broad right to me.
Courts haven’t incorporated the second amendment via the fourteenth, no doubt out of a tenth amendment stricture. They don’t want to be regulating the states power here. Some states do have constitutional rights to keep and bear. Still, restrictions, registrations, etc, do not offend.
Found these a while ago.[url=“http://www.netgrab.com/fun/guncontrol/”]
Comments?
Sometimes ,when trying to be right ,you forget that the real problem is how do you protect the populace.
Me
I resent the implication that I “complained” about anything. You linked to that article as though you believed it was the study itself, which it plainly is not.
Weak objection, my ass. An implication is not proof. It’s intellectually dishonest to claim otherwise. Thanks for the admission that Kellerman’s study only “implies” a connection; future claims by you that the Kellerman study “proves” anything will be considered nonsensical and disregarded.
To repeat: “No, it does not [prove causation]; but it certainly merits a study into causation.” I feel like I’m beating my head against a wall here…
Calling it a “weak objection” doesn’t make it go away, and I have yet to see you address it. And I’m under no obligation to supply you with alternative explanations, the burden of proof is on YOU.
Are you just guessing, or do you have proof?
Huh? I’m not making claims that require proof. It’s up to the party making an assertion (in this case, your claiming that the Kellerman study is valid) to demonstrate the truth of that assertion. You claim that his neighborhood controls were appropriate; show me.
I had to do a double-take on this one to see if you were serious. The numbers in the Kleck study I quoted correspond closely with the numbers in the Kellerman article: of 1860 homicides in Kellerman’s study area, 444 occurred in the home, or 23.8%, differing from Kleck’s numbers by less than 1%. Are you now denying simply for the sake of disagreeing?
Lott. Deal with it.
And no further explanation, I see. Why could no control be found?
I’ve been demonstrating the flaws in Kellerman’s methodology for the past two days. You have a very short and selective memory.
I see I’m going to have to explain “sarcasm”. You were wrong, but instead of admitting your error and perhaps saying “thanks for the info”, you responded with an “okay fine, so there’s one.” Bad form.
To some, they are, although not to me. I don’t think we’re disagreeing on anything here, so I’m dropping this part in the future.
You miss my point. Had the Court required a showing of proof, firearm ownership could implicitly be limited to the class of citizens described as the ordinary militia, excluding from the class anyone not “able-bodied” or within the 18-45 (if I remember the statute correctly) age limits. Miller didn’t require evidence of militia eligibility, so Grandma can still own a gun without fear of prosecution.
Okay, since you asked nicely: the first part of the statement that “the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”” is a gross misunderstanding of Miller’s holding. Nowhere in Miller does the Court say that all arms save militia arms are unprotected. The Court in Miller simply handed the case back to the district court so that evidence could be introduced concerning whether or not a sawed-off shotgun was a weapon that furthered the interests of the militia, since no such evidence was on the record. It should be noted that Miller himself was not at the hearing before the Supreme Court, nor was he represented by an attorney; no argument was presented on his behalf.
That would probably have been the quick ‘n’ easy way to go. Instead, the judge chose to decide the case on Second Amendment grounds. Now we’ll just wait and see what comes of the appeals.
Section 22 of the Illinois constitution provides that “Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The court in Quilici did state that handguns were a type of “arm” protected by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. They went on to state that “although the framers intended handguns to be one of the arms conditionally protected under section 22, they also envisioned that local governments might exercise their police power to restrict, or prohibit, the right to keep and bear handguns.” In forming this opinion, the court relied on statements by the Illinois constitution’s framers that section 22 “would prevent a complete ban on all guns, but there could be a ban on certain categories.” Apparently, the court felt that “handguns” was not too broad a category to ban. It’s worth noting that the bulk of the text of Quilici is taken up by a vehement dissent.
So, is it up to me to read the cases FOR you now?
Indeed they have not. Problem is, Second Amendment cases are rare, and the Court can’t incorporate a right through the 14th unless the Court is asked. No SA case has been granted cert since Miller, where, you’ll recall, no one presented arguments on Miller’s behalf. Emerson just might make it up the hill, and the Court will interpret the Second Amendment at last.
“A free people ought…to be armed…”
–George Washington,
´…Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power.
Three millions of people, armed in the Holy cause of Liberty, and in such a country as that which we posses,
are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battle
alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight
our battle for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave…
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
–Patrick Henry
Well It’s been seven hours since I asked Crimson this Question
Excuse me,Mr Crimson sir.
Am I to understand that you are a proponent of hand to hand combat?
If so how is the single mother in Harlem going to protect herself and her family? or the 67 year old retireeliving in Mt Union Iowa.
If not sir, how is the single mother in harlem going to protect herself and her family?or the 67 year old retiree living in Mt Union Iowa?
I was polite,don’t you think.
I simply want to know if he has thought of the consequences of his actions.
You know I’ll bet he hasn’t even thought of it.
You know us little guys are kinda used to that.
Oh I already know what the 67 year old will do.He will pull out his old antique pistol and shoot the son of a bitch.
This isn’t usenet, after all, any interested reader has nearly instant access to the entire discussion, so attribution is less important in this sort of format. Plus, I’ve always believed in attack words or the sentiments behind them, or the underlying strategies, rather than the person who made them. If that makes it hard for you to follow, perhaps you should take up macrame?
Huh. How suspect does a basic ignorance of history, as Cool has displayed, then, make the rest of what he says?
Most of your criticisms seem unfounded.
“Kellerman doesnt show causation.”
Yeah, he kind of does, since the homicide rate doesn’t go up in general, but only for guns
“Kellerman’s neighborhood controls are inaccurate”
maybe, maybe not. Prove it. It shouldn’t be so hard to discover.
It’s not an issue of what I wish to believe, its an issue of what I have to believe after applying reason fairly. The criticisms of Kellerman are mostly speculative. Well, super, but I’m from Missouri, you know? The criticism of Lott and Kleck are things you can look up and demonstrate with ordinary mathematics.
Responded to, many times. Show that his neighborhood controls are false.
Sorry, there was some work and sleep I had to attend to. Plus, you know, your question was kind of stupid.
You can call me “daddy.”
The only fights I’ve ever been in are the ones I went looking for.
Perhaps she can keep a shotgun in the home. Also, apparently Guiliani’s goons did a fair amount of crime reduction in NYC, so that crime in NYC is now much lower than in Miami.
[quote]
or the 67 year old retireeliving in Mt Union Iowa.
[quote]
Here’s how to protect yourself. Do not use drugs, or sell drugs, or associate with people who do. Do not cheat on your wife or girlfriend, or be the person who someone cheats on their wife or girlfriend with. Strangers are not the threat.
if Mt. Union Iowa is like the rest of Iowa, the 67 year old can protect himself equally well with a ham sandwich.
Well, unless he’s black. Then he might actually be at risk for something.
Assuming he remembers where he put it. Anyway, he’s got more to fear from “you may already have won!” sweepstakes.
Quite a cognitive leap, don’t you think? I never said I favored a gun ban at all, I just want a certain level of accountability introduced so that illegal guns can be kept out of the hands of bad people.
I know economic thought is alien to you, the issue of costs and risks and benefits and rational choices, but here’s how it works. If the price of candy bars goes up, you buy fewer candy bars.
I am not worried about being robbed by John Gotti, a person of unlimited resources, or Michael Jordan, a person of unlimited motivation. I am worried about being robbed by someone to whom 50 dollars is a lot of money, and who lacks the discipline to hold down a job…the aforementioned meth-head mugger. If we make the price of an illegal gun 100 dollars, we’ve effectively reduced his ability to wage crime.
Now, let’s see how informed you characters are…where do illegal guns come from? where do criminals get guns? Do you know? I do. It doesn’t speak well for the nation’s “law-abiding” gun owners.
It’s funny how you all point to Switzerland as an example of how guns can work, but howl when anyone suggests you live by the same gun laws they have in Switzerland (which, by the way, has the highest shooting deaths among European nations)
Silly crimson
I’m sure that you forgot about the single mother.
Hell she probably can’t afford a gallon of milk.
And she has something that crack head wants.(hint It is between her legs)
What is she supposed to do.
In the west dance hall"ladies" carried derringers as a matter of fact in some circles any thing smaller than a 38 is a ladies gun.
When things are up close and personal a shotgun is not at all practical.
Explain, then, the tables at the beginning of that Kellerman opinion-piece you love to link. It lists that one’s odds of being killed in one’s home are not only 2.7 times greater when one owns a gun, but also 3.7 times greater when one lives alone (you’d think living alone would mean that there’s no one around to kill in anger, wouldn’t you?) and 4.4 times greater if you rent your home. I can’t wait to hear what relevance whatsoever one’s status as a renter rather than an owner has to one’s chance of being killed. I have an idea, but I’d like to hear your thoughts first.
Perhaps Kellerman’s control matches weren’t as carefully selected as you would have us believe? Or perhaps those factors, like gun ownership, are merely coincidences? What’s your bet?
BTW crinson
6 miles south west of Mt Union is a prison just full of drug dealers and sexual offenders.
Also 30 miles south east is the Iowa state prison. There are a lot of bad bad guys there.
If they are good they get sent to Mt Pleasant where I live to spend the rest of their time.
If you can figure something out, you’re safe in assuming I can.
It’s a weak objection. Kellerman’s work certainly implies causation strongly, because of the absence of a similar increase in non-gun homicide. To say otherwise is intellectually dishonest. Take your lawn mower example. If Lawn mowers owners were just accident prone, you’d expect them to have higher death from all causes, but they don’t. That points to the lawn mower making things worse.
How do you think I feel? You have to admit the lack of an overall increase in homicide is very suggestive.
Proof of what, spidey? That anomolies disappear with averaging? Hmmm, look at the lottery. That age race income and sex are good predictors of crime incidence? the CDC seems to think so. That’s a really weak charge on your part, frankly, do you want to move on?
Yes, you are. You’re saying his neighborhood controls are inappropriate. Show the class. Okay, I guess you don’t have to show Cool or Wrath, because they’d uncritically accept any old statement.
I was referring to Kleck’s work in general.
Mostly by speculating his neighborhood controls might be invalid, or he selected an anomolous group in some way.
You have an inflated opinion of the argumentative power of “maybe.”
I see I’m going to have to explain “special pleading.”
No, I think you’re elevating the one time you caught me out so you have something to show for yourself. Again, this is an exceptional reading, as you yourself admit, and as such does not refute the still generally true proposition that courts do not regard the second amendment as a constitutional guarentee, supercedeing state rights, of a broad individual right to keep and bear.
I would be happiest in a Swiss model. There is some benefit to a widely armed populace, however that populace should be trained and disciplined and regulated, and america’s gun culture generally discouraged. Also, people who don’t need guns, and that’s really most people, shouldn’t have them, although that would ultimately be an individual choice.
“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?
A superior finding that the decision was right for the wrong reasons is probably the easiest way to avoid the Supreme Court having to rule one way or another decisively on the Second Amendment, which they are somewhat reluctant to do.
local governments can restrict or prohibit the right to keep and bear handguns, and other types of weapon? Does that suggest the militia right and the individual right are separate, or that “shall not be abridged” means “shall make no law regarding”? (actually, that’s pretty tricky, the legal language. If a speech is defined as unprotected, then it’s not “free” speech, and you can have laws against obscenity, say. Oh, them wacky statesmen)
I bet it doesn’t, but this is of course a “will not, will so” question right now.
Silly crimson
John Gotti is in jail.
Before I start, Apologies all around for starting to get angry and frustrated in my last couple posts. It’s difficult to stay calm and make intelligent arguments when an opponent’s rebuttals carry all the tact and eloquence of “yeah? well so’s ya mutha”
I did not miss your point in the first place. My problem with your idea is that I’m not looking for a safe and effective way for you to infringe my rights. I’m letting you know that I (and many others) will not stand for further reductions in my rights, including the the right of self-defense.
You assume incorrectly. I’m actually referring to the relatively short 25 year transition from 1914, when Germany was a strong and stable world player, to 1939 when it set out to conquer the world and commit genocide. No matter how good things might look to you now, there’s no telling what might happen in the future. And I’m not talking about 100 or 1000 years. I’m talking about 10 and 15 years. The protections of liberty that were set out in the constitution 200 years ago were far-sighted and well thought out, and we do our country and ourselves a disservice by undermining those precautions on the premise that “it’s all good now, nothing can happen!” Nobody ever thinks it can happen until it does. Do you also refuse to wear a seatbelt because, “well hey, I’m a good driver, it won’t happen to me”? That’s what we’re doing now, politically.
However, I admit that Germany wasn’t the best example and wasn’t my most well thought out post. I think we can all agree that European history is obviously not my strong suit.
I understand that sentiment completely. But what I’m trying to get at is that the reason the psychos and freaks are so brave is that they get to run around unhindered. They know that the majority of people do not own weapons and even fewer carry them. And even a smaller proportion actually know how to defend themselves. To restate my metaphor, we have a small number of wolves among a society made up of sheep. The wolves have no fear whatsoever, because the police cannot be everywhere at once, and well, what chance does your average sheep have of defending successfully against a wolf?
I see what you’re saying, but I am still thankful that you don’t get to decide what rights I should and should not have. The 2nd Amendment is the foundation and a hedge around the 1st. I honestly believe that when the one goes, the other will soon follow.
Ok, none of this part is even in line with what the original conversation was. How about if we drop it?
I won’t own a Colt, so I really can’t answer. 
But I also believe that particular one-shot kill was divinely assisted. Sue me. In the same account, David was mocked by both Israeli and Philistine soldiers for coming to battle with a sling. So maybe they agreed with you. The point is that deadly projectile weapons were commonplace. The bible makes no mention of controlling the tools of destruction, only their handlers. A view which I embrace wholeheartedly.
Just because we disagree really really really strongly, doesn’t mean we can’t joke around.
On another thread I saw this quotation:
“I have never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friendship.
–Thomas Jefferson”
I think it’s appropriate here. Whoever posted it must be really wise.
Think about the kind of liberty enjoyed by US Citizens 100 years ago. Look around you now. Do you really not see a reduction of rights and freedom? If not, you’re either blind to it or fooling yourself.
And as the gun control advocates here are so fond of pointing out when it suits their purposes, This is not Great Britain. There are many more differences in the society than the presence of guns. Otherwise I guess Switzerland would be rife with wanton violence. Right?
No, I gave you the original and true definition of a dum dum bullet. You gave me a politicized, twisted, reworked one. This is so difficult because you aren’t paying attention to what’s being said.
Thank you! The best way for a point to be made is for your opponent to make it for you. If I use a handgun in an assault, then that handgun is my assault-weapon. To be distinguished from an Assault-Rifle. If I use a rock, a pointed stick, or even a piece of fruit in an assault (whether it be a planned siege against a garrisoned stronghold or stealing candy from a child), then that stick, rock, or banana is an assault weapon. My point is, once again, that the political entities who favor elimination of guns take well-understood and common-usage terms and redefine them. Redefining standard terms to a nonstandard meaning is a common dirty debating trick. So that when your opponent uses them in the standard way, you respond as though he had used them in your way, shifting the focus of the debate from the topic at hand to the definition of terms. As has happened here.
I did. I thought I’d throw that out for two reasons: 1) in case somebody else couldn’t remember who he was, and 2) so I could take a cheap shot at Sarah Brady.
Well, in your story, Joe Blow is a man who would not kill if a gun were not present. With the addition ONLY of a gun to your scenario, Joe Blow goes from mild-mannered guy who would only give the milkman a severe talking-to (sarcasm), into a homicidal maniac who has no qualms about taking another life. It’s been my experience that when someone has it in his heart to kill, the lack of a convenient weapon will not stop him. When a person wouldn’t kill otherwise, addtition of a convenient means won’t turn him into a murderer.
I am aware of that. You posed the question back to me in your response. Making it your question to me. I answered it.
I’m really not much of a stickler for pointing out debating errors, but this is quite clearly an ad hominem attack, and has absolutely nothing to do with what we’re talking about. If you have a problem with the idea, attack the idea. Not the man.
As I stated in a later post, it was an editing error, not a thought process error. I meant to type “killed accidentally by…”
I do, in fact, understand that. However, I believe (and many others, including the ones who chartered our nation) that arms have more social value than cost. You have already shown that you don’t agree, so I don’t feel like typing it out again to labor the point just now.
No offense taken to the threat comment. I don’t believe in making threats, only stating facts. If I were to tell a person “drop your knife and back off or I’ll shoot you,” and he did not both drop the knife and back off, I would, in fact shoot him. I do not believe in brandishing a gun as a threat, and that if a weapon is drawn in anger, the armed person had better use it quickly, or else he has just escalated the confrontation to a level to which he is not willing to commit (demonstrated by failing to use his weapon).
You can’t really be serious, can you? You really believe that one marine can win against 10 civilians? The Marines’ strength is that they can fight cohesively as a unit [1 marine is just 1 guy. 2 marines are better than 2 individuals. 10 marines are dangerous], not that they’re a race of supermen. Given obviously better training and better armament, a marine could probably make 1 or 2, maybe even 3 kills before he dies, but he would most definitely die in a battle against 10 armed civilians.
Tell that to Afghanistan and the Soviet soldiers who fought there in a vain attempt to subdue it. Tell that to the American soldiers who defeated the British professional army. Tell it to the contras in Nicaragua and to the people in Viet Nam, who defeated our very own armed forces.
Yes, every one of them received money and equipment from foreign sources, but the fact is that a well-equipped militia composed of civilians who fight passionately to defend their homeland certainly can defeat a professional army composed of soldiers who fight for money and because they’re following orders.
Believe it or not, I’ll be sorry to see you go. Previously noted frustration aside, I’m enjoying this debate, and I am making an honest attempt to give fair consideration to some of the issues you’ve brought up.
Gaudere,
I am bothered by the fact that my one inappropriate post was singled out for your rebuke. I have to wonder why you didn’t speak up about all the rest that has gone on unabated, mostly by one user, who has consistently ignored the “don’t be a jerk” rule while the majority tried to keep debate to a reasonable level.
Anyway, chastisement noted and accepted.