But here is the real motivation for guns grabbers: “We think it might make us more safe, and since WE dont own of the nasty things, let’s ban them!” But try and ban something they like or want, and they go into a tizzy.
The smokers killing FIVE TIMEs as many innocent victims as guns- talking about “smokers rights”.
The boozers doing about the same “Prohibition didnt work, so we can drink all we want, even tho we too, kill others.”
Those who drive over powered cars, with top speeds twice that of the legal limit.
If you smoke or drink or drive really fast cars, then you should really shut up about taking guns away.
That’s about the level of intellectual rigor I expect from your posts. Followed by the expected self-declaration of victory based on absolutely nothing.
I at least have a bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice with about a half-dozen criminology classes under my belt. What qualifications or educational background do you have that would even begin to make you think that your overly simplistic thesis and experiment will produce anything of real value?
There is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.
A Doctor living in an upscale neighborhood was home one day with his wife and two teenage daughters. Two criminals who had been casing the neighborhood finally decided to act and invaded their home.
They beat the doctor severely and left him for dead then proceeded to rape and torture his wife and daughters before tying them up and burning them alive by setting the house on fire.
What were the odds of that?
If the doctor had owned a gun would it have helped?
Maybe, maybe not
But if he did own a gun his chances of saving his family from a horrible death would have at least been better
There is real violence in this world and just because you haven’t been a victim as of yet in no way means you won’t be in the future.
Hey, you started with the absolutely nothing first. You had a thesis of “heterogeneous population as a cause of increased criminality or conflict in general” and when I proposed compiling some basic stats to examine this, you turned around and said it was way too complicated. Frankly, I take that as admission your statement is more dogma than fact, and you don’t wish to have it examined, let alone challenged.
Nah - choosing to be concerned about one particular problem does not and certainly should not stifle freedom of expression, even in light of other problems. That’s a first amendment thing.
It’s not my thesis. It’s so well known in criminology and the social sciences in general that its existence at least is seen as an accepted fact (the specifics and the strength of the effect is more debated). Here are a few sources I found with a few seconds of Google search. The last author, Sellin, is considered a pioneer in scientific criminology and one of the founders of what is commonly called Conflict Criminology.
Group Size, Heterogeneity, and Intergroup Conflict: A Test of Blau’s Inequality and Heterogeneity
Robert J. Sampson
Population Heterogeneity and the Sociogenesis of Homicide
Henry B. Hansmann and John M. Quigley
Social Forces
Vol. 61, No. 1 (Sep., 1982), pp. 206-224
Culture Conflict and Crime
Thorsten Sellin
American Journal of Sociology
Vol. 44, No. 1 (Jul., 1938), pp. 97-103
Okay, all the reason to study the relative diversity of American and Canadian cities to see how much impact diversity has versus how much impact gun control has.
Canadian cities may or may not be less diverse, but I’m fairly confident they are a lot less violent.
How are the people supposed to know you’re “well-regulated” and not just a bunch of drunken inept clowns waving guns around? Maybe by having regulations? Like proof of training? No, that would be to simple a solution.
What question? You’re implying ALL liberals want to take ALL guns as if it’s a gotcha moment and makes everything transparent. That’s not a question, it’s a joke.
I’m kind of curious about creating a citizen’s militia that is not controlled by the government. Seems to me the government, state or federal, would call that an “insurrection” and mobilize the militia they controlled to stop it.
Gestalt hasn’t been around since the 8th, so I wonder if he even cares about this so called debate anymore. However, I will answer all the questions he asked in his original post.
Because nobody is arguing that the militia cannot have any restrictions or regulations anymore that free speech has no restrictions. But the restrictions cannot be such (like banning guns) that would prevent a militia entirely. You cannot have a condition precedent with the potential of destroying the right such as the government mandating certain things like training before owning guns.
I wouldn’t have a problem with saying that you cannot drink booze on militia duty or that the militia is to adopt accepted methods of training and drilling. But the keeping and bearing and owning guns is one of the basic prerequisites for a militia.
The argument is that we are just being silly that NOBODY wants to take your guns. Your side in this thread and others suggest otherwise. Are you disputing that?
A militia is not an insurrection, it is “necessary to the security of a free state.” It supplements the powers of the government and may indeed be called into the service of the federal government if needed under Congress’ Article I powers. Reasonable regulations can be made, but it cannot be disarmed or restricted in owning arms anymore than the free press can have heavily regulated and taxed ink and paper.
Try to assemble your own “people’s militia” outside of government control, and I predict it’ll get called one, and rather quickly, the moment you actually do something militia-like involving the bearing of arms. I daresay the moment you try to put this belief into action:
…and decide you need not answer to any government official, state or federal, you’ll find they’re just fine demonstrating that they do indeed have a monopoly on force, and prison-time awaits people who decide to use force on their own. Regardless of how you want to interpret the 2nd Amendment, there’s lots of other stuff in the constitution about rebellion and such.
Approximately half the states maintain laws regulating private militias. Generally, these laws prohibit the parading and exercising of armed private militias in public, but do not forbid the formation of private militias.