[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by The Crimson Hipster Dufuz *
**
Strange…I seem to recall that Nicole Simpson was killed quite brutally with a knife, not a gun.
A drive-by shooting (Carruth) is a premeditated act by a person who is clearly capable of committing murder anyway and was not “pushed over the edge” so to speak, by the presence of a gun. This was not a hot-blood spur-of-the-moment act of passion.
The scenario clearly asks for an example of a person who would not kill otherwise, but only with the addition of a gun to the mix, not just a person killed by somebody they know.
Therefore, I don’t accept either of your examples.
Strangely, I’m almost in agreement with you. If I believed that our government was trustworthy not to take any regulation to an extreme and use it to disarm the public (as has happened in, for example, New York City), I would support that type of control.
sigh…okay, let’s try an analogy. I claim that invisible elephants cause the rotation of the Earth by flapping their giant wings. You say I’m wrong. I have the burden of proof, because I made the original claim.
Now, you say that the control matching in Kellerman’s survey was accurate and reliable. I say it isn’t. Who has the burden of proof? (hint: you can’t prove a negative)
I see. So, having no grounds on which to attack the message, you attack the messenger. Not a valid debate tactic, particularly since we weren’t discussing the accuracy of Kleck’s work in general. Next week, when I have more time, maybe.
Of all the cases you cited (apparently by copy-and-paste from some pro-gun control website, since it’s readily apparent that you didn’t read the cases), only one even remotely resembled the assertion in your above statement. That one case, however, did state that the police power could never be lawfully utilized to ban all forms of firearms, although it could prohibit ownership of some categories of firearms. The court held that individuals cannot be completely denied access to arms, which to me means that (even in that anomalous township) there is an individual right to keep and bear.
See, I wouldn’t have a problem with training, except that someone’s gotta pay for it, which means that poorer people (those most likely to live in high-crime neighborhoods and thus more likely to need self-protection) will in effect be denied access to their best potential means of self-defense.
I’m having trouble parsing your last sentence; I don’t get how a “need-based” system would include “choice”.
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.
Sadly true, the Supremes avoid Amendment Number Two like the plague. And it is a real possibility that the Court of Appeals will say, “Right result, wrong reason” and invalidate the Second Amendment-centered holding of Emerson. Still, with what I’ve heard about the oral argument, the judges were gun-owning sportsmen themselves, and were shocked at the U.S. attorney’s statement that “the Second Amendment confers no individual right to bear arms.” So, I’m hopeful.
It is indeed amazing. Some of my classmates in Mass Media Law were of the opinion that the First Amendment only restricts actions of Congress (you know, because it starts out with “Congress shall make no law”) and that the individual states could restrict free speech if they so chose. A scoff-worthy opinion, in my book, but lawyers think the darndest things.
Anyway, “shall not be infringed” has been widely held not to mean “shall not be subject to regulation.” So, the legislature can make laws, but can’t ban outright. Doesn’t mean we pro-gun folks have to like the laws, or keep quiet about 'em. heh.
This, by the way, is false. The US was certainly not defeated militarily in Vietnam, and in fact destroyed the “well equipped militia composed of civilians who fight passionately to defend their homeland,” namely the Viet Cong by 1968. The remainder of the fighting was done by the NVA, a regular, professional army, and they never won a battle.
"James F. Dunnigan and Albert A. Nofi’s book thoroughly debunks some of the favorite myths surrounding the war. One such myth is that “America suffered a military defeat.” The United States never lost a battle in the field, but it did not win the political battle in Vietnam. The NVA defeated the United States the same way they defeated the French, but without the need for a Dien Bien Phu. Relying on typical Western impatience, the North Vietnamese avoided combat as much as possible, depending on newspapers and television to take the horrors of war into American living rooms. " http://www.thehistorynet.com/reviews/bk_vnoct002.htm
"Viet Cong guerillas (from South Vietnam) virtually destroyed as a fighting force; some argue that was intentional on the part of the North Vietnamese leaders "
““While in Vietnam, American forces didn’t lose any major campaign or battle. The enemy was able to inflict tragic losses on small groups of American troops at platoon and company level, but Americans devastated whole regiments and divisions of the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army. Even the 1968 Tet offensive was only an illusory victory, one that was measured in days and hours for the Communists and which cost them horrendous losses. In fact, after that offensive, the enemy’s ability to wage a major campaign was destroyed and the Viet Cong ceased to be a viable force throughout most of South Vietnam.” (Schneider, Ches; 262)” http://www.jbs.org/vietnam/vets/tet_1968.htm
Here are a couple of articles on the Soviet experience in Afghanistan. It’s a little different, you can make a better case they were defeated under arms:
While soviet morale in Afghanistan was generally lower than that of US forces in Viet-nam, I find the similar casualty rate to be pretty telling:
"One needs only review the recently released casualty figures to underscore the pervasiveness of the problem. Soviet dead and missing in Afghanistan amounted to almost 15,000 troops, a modest percent of the 642,000 Soviets who served during the ten-year war. Far more telling were the 469,685 other casualties, fully 73 percent of the overall force, who were wounded or incapacitated by serious illness. Some 415,932 troops fell victim to disease, of which 115,308 suffered from infectious hepatitis and 31,080 from typhoid fever. Beyond the sheer magnitude of these numbers is what these figures say about Soviet military hygiene and the conditions surrounding troop life. "
You might also think about that one time when certain states to the south decided they’d had enough of the Federal government, and how well that worked out, although perhaps had Lee been more of a Washington or Giap? Mmmm, I dunno…that’s not something the US was going to eventually give up on, succession and that’s how guerillas win wars. Certainly the Union endured years of bloody losses and defeated a well-equipped militia fighting for their homeland, and just between you and me, there are several steps, like an all volunteer army, popular soveriegnity, a separation of military and police organizations, civilian control of the military, etc, between you and a police state. You might also want to consider the wisdom of putting the former head of the nation’s secret police or his son in charge of this swell land of ours, expanding police powers under the hubris of “get tough on crime,” etc. The various “militia” groups active these days have more in common with the SA and the SS, groups of armed thugs, than they do with the minute-men.
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.”
You do, you’re countering a factual supposition with speculation.
Sure you can. I can prove the Jazz didn’t win the 1993 NBA finals, or that the Earth isn’t flat, or whatever. Presumably, you could go look up information on statistical controls, and present appropriate information as to what methodology is appropriate, where.
"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.
No, I attack the body of his work, general standards of reliability, etc… I make no speculation as to his personal life at all
If guns were an effective deterranct against crime in the home, it would’ve shown up in Kellerman. Given Klecks penchant for unreplicatable results or unique datasets, well…
I didn’t read every single case, I admit. I only examined Supreme Court decisions citing Miller closely, so it’s possible some of the referenced circuit court decisions were somewhat less relevant. However, I did read the language of a few of them, and they do generally support what i say, and further you’ve even admitted the courts do not interpret the second generally as an individual right, and never as broadly as, say, the first amendment. Felons who have paid their debt to society, for example, have the same rights of assembly, worship, etc, you and I do.
The burden could be shifted to the state, since after all you’re fufilling your milita obligations, or whatever. 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.
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.
That was the case for a while, of course, back in the days apparently many of you long for. What was that about how the founders got it all right?
Mr Dufuz (my apologies for a long absence… school and all. Gah, it’s been a long day)…
Even you have to admit that in Vietnam, the 'Cong got their licks in for such a ragtag organization. I imagine that the defining factor that ensured that the US forces wouldn’t be defeated militarily was the superior air forces… we had no qualms about bombing the shit out of 'Nam.
I would, however, like you to ponder (simply ponder) two notions: Numbers, and environment.
First… 250 million civs versus, what, a few hundred thousand troops? If even that? (Our military isn’t as large as some may think) Hardly a fair fight, even with the most advanced of weaponry.
Second… any large-scale warfare (tanks, gunships, cruise missiles, bombing runs, etc.) would ultimately undermine the infrastructure of the nation, and would do at least as much damage (if not more) to those instigating the attacks.
Think of it this way… you’re Mr. Military Dictator. You want to crush the rebels. There’re a few reports of a couple dozen rebels hiding in New York. Do you A: bomb the whole city to rubble, hoping you may get them, or B: send in a few hundred squads to contain any potential riot?
The choices either leave you destroying yourself, or spending HUGE amounts of resources without getting much gain back.
I admit that the whole notion of tyrants controlling the US and rebels and all that is a subject best left to movies, but the point is that proliferation of firearms among the general populace is preventive medicine in terms of keeping freedom from being usurped. Not 100% effective, no (nothing is, really), nor is it the ONLY method. However, as has been noted (I don’t know if it’s being ignored, of if a better response is being formulated to address the many earlier points which seem to have been glossed over), there are many uses for guns. You can’t take each individual usage and pick that apart… that’s a less-than-appropriate debating tactic. You know as well as I (I’m sure you’d claim you know better) that one needs to take the matter, as a whole, and debate it, as a whole.
One other small thing. I honestly don’t mean to sound contentious, but I’ve been thinking about this ever since I read it…can you find this definition from a more authoritative source than the cyberpunk archive? Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a really valuable source of information on cyberpunk culture, but I don’t think I’d choose them as an authoritative reference on ammunition.
Why would you think that? People who live alone use drugs, have girlfriends, etc. They’re also likely to be younger and poorer than people who live in families. Perhaps more anti-social, prone to abberant behavior, etc.
Age and income would probably be lower in renters, renters are more likely to be transients, generally less well socialized, however I am speculating. I do wonder, however, if the rate increases proportionally from all causes with renting, etc. We do not know. We do know that gun ownership is associated with an increase in gun homicide, but no increase in homicide from other causes.
perhaps the world is an illusion.
I think it’s most likely living alone and renting are associated with other risk factors or crime exposure. However, even if owning a gun is merely coincidental as to the increased risk, owning the gun must not confer a benefit upon the owner as to addressing that risk. Certainly, the most straightforward explanation is that the presence of a gun makes ordinary situations which tend to come up for all people, a fight, a drug deal gone bad, a confrontation over a love triangle, much more deadly, since again the majority of the deaths are caused by intimate acquaintances. I’m not even sure why that’s particularly controversial, since you could always just say “well, maybe so, but I’m calm most of the time, and I dont use drugs or cheat on my wife”
Sure, and artillery, and even just things like having a lot more ammunition enables you to fight with different, more conservative tactics, since you can suppress any given position as you advance on it, or bring artillery to bear, or whatever.
That’s a lot of people who are sick, old, young, whatever, bearing arms, you know.
I guess, if you put them all in one spot and they were all equally motivated to fight. is that the scenario you envision?
See, I’d control the people through a Brave New World model, and not a 1984 model.
The choices either leave you destroying yourself, or spending HUGE amounts of resources without getting much gain back.
so probably we shouldn’t be quoting True Romance and positing Red Dawn scenarios, and I would generally weigh crime prevention heavily than oppose tyranny.
Frankly, I’m more worried about what would happen if people like Koresh or McVeigh or the various groups Weaver is associated with really got going.
I’m going to consolidate a bunch of replies to Justwanno or whoever it is.
I’m pretty sure guns actually cost more than a gallon of milk, though, so looks like owning one isn’t an issue for her either way. Say, you want to go ask the single women of Harlem where they stand on gun control, and promise to abide by the result?
I’m sorry, I’m not an expert on the behavior of figments of your imagination, I have no idea what she’s going to do.
Horrors! Someone might escape from prison and sell you drugs? Why doesn’t Mr. Maudling do something?
Duly noted, prisons are full of criminals. I’m glad we got that cleared up.
hey, guys…where do criminals get guns, huh? I mean, they sure don’t steal them, do they? Not if guns deter crimes so effectively, and if who ever knew how to work a lathe, he’d prolly, you know, work for a living…so, where do bad people get their guns? Do you know?
OK you took my words apart so they didn’t have their original meaning so I’ll paraphrase them again.
WHAT IS THE SINGLE MOM LIVING IN HARLEM ,OR ANYWHERE ELSE, GOING TO USE TO DEFEND HERSELF IF YOU WERE TO GET YOUR WAY AND RAISE THE PRICE OF GUNS SO THEY WERE TOO EXPENSIVE FOR THE STREET CRACK DEALER.
I’ve already said that a shotgun is too large a weapon to use in close quarters. I’ve also reminded you that she does not have much money.
I’ll concede that many of the vocal people in Harlem have come out for gun control,but my bet is that there are many more that have them ,and you couldn’t get them to tell you so because they are now afraid some crazed politition who doesn’t have to live where they do is going to try to take it away.BTW that handgun they are hiding so they can defend themselves is probably stolen.
I assume a hardware store, sporting goods store? Since she’s a law abiding citizen, she can buy a gun legally, after we close the “kitchen table” loop hole, at the market price. Incidentally, I have a general policy of not replying to people who type sentences all in capital letters, so…
so how is she going to buy a gun in the first place? Should we subsidize guns for the poor? You might make a free-marketeer out of me after all…
Hey, if you’re going to play the “won’t someone think of the poor single mother in Harlem” changes, why don’t you ask the poor single mothers of Harlem what they think about gun control and promise to abide by the result?
this is what I meant earlier about cognitive dissonance. Guns are great at deterring crime, supposedly, but there’s also this tremendous black market on every corner assuring anyone who wants one a stolen handgun for pennies, and they deliver.
No, stolen guns are not a large source of guns used in crimes, want to try again, using the shift key as appropriate?
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?
I understand this, but I also know that when I hear the invented term, “Assault-Rifle,” I envision a semi-automatic rifle, such as an M16, SKS, or AK47, that can be easily converted to automatic and equipped with large-capacity clips. Lots of tissues not of the Kleenex brand are called kleenex. Yet when I ask you for a kleenex, you still know what to give me.
Here’s the problem, though: the very same table I cited (which, apparently, you didn’t even look at) lists drug use and past instances of domestic violence SEPARATELY as risk factors (5.7 and 4.4, respectively). So, unless you believe that Kellerman didn’t adequately isolate and control his variables, allowing, say, crossover between “living alone” and “drug use”, one variable should not affect the risk ratio of another. The risk factor, to be taken seriously, must be considered in isolation of other factors. And, if poverty, age, or transience were what ACTUALLY affected the risk ratio, it seems strange not to list them as the relevant factor rather than “living alone”.
As I said above, if living alone and renting are associated with other risk factors, those other factors should be the ones listed, not “living alone” and “renting”. Explain please how renting an apartment, in itself, increases one’s expectation of being murdered 4.4 times.
