Joe Bloggs and Guns

[UncleBeer]

And none of my guns have ever held up a 7-11 either.

[jab1]

Originally posted by Freedom:
**The biggest question I have, is that since it has been proven that allowing law abiding citizens to carry firearms lowers the crime rate, why is there such a push to restrict and ban guns?
**

First of all, I’d like to see the statistics that claim that. If they come from the NRA or a member of the NRA, I would not be surprised and would reject them out of hand. If they were compiled by an unbiased entity, I’d consider them.

Every convicted criminal was once a “law-abiding citizen” before he or she broke the law. There is no guarantee that a person will be “law-abiding” his or her entire life. You call yourself Freedom. Well, I want the freedom to walk down the street without worrying that the next person I bump into is carrying a concealed gun. Or an UNconcealed one, for that matter. The way I see it, you wouldn’t have that weapon if you didn’t think you’d ever need it. I know, you’d rather have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. It’s like carrying an umbrella when it looks like it might rain later. If it doesn’t rain, you’re still glad you had that umbrella in case it did.

However, very few umbrellas can be used as deadly weapons and that’s where the analogy breaks down.

As for why I’d leave that town that required gun ownership, it’s because that town would have denied me a basic right: The right to choose what I will buy with my own money. As for why I’d ask others to go with me, well, I’d be lonely if they didn’t, wouldn’t I?

As for killing someone who threatened my children (and I’m not a father, BTW), I would use anything UP TO deadly force to protect them, but that is a line I WILL NOT cross. If I did, I’d be no better than the person threatening me. If we are not better than the criminals, we would no longer have the right to punish them. We could no longer claim to have superior morals and ethics on our side. Do the ends justify the means? And, no, I would not kill to save you, either.

Like it or not, you and any criminal you care to name is equally human and no human has any more right to life than any other, no matter what acts that human has committed.

I’ll be back.

---

>< DARWIN >
__L___L

[John_Corrado]

Excuse me while I revel in my American provincialism, stupidity, and/or gullibility.

Spiny Norman said:

One noticeable exception is the idiot biker gangs, who fight their turf wars with grenades and rocket launchers - and their idiot copycats.

You’re joking, right?

If not, it almost makes me glad for AK-47s…

---

JMCJ

Winner of the Mr. & Mrs. Polycarp Award for Literalizing Cliches for knowing an actual atheist in a foxhole.

[Glitch]

jab1: See my post, and the material quoted. Legitimate research done professionally and with integrity. Enjoy.

[Glitch]

jab1: Concerning you desire not to use deadly force. That is you choice, of course, but self defense experts do not generally concur with your view.

Self defense experts like Ayoob, Sanford Strong, Jeff Cooper and even myself all agree that it is perfectly valid to weigh human life when one person (i.e. the criminal) has unilaterally decided to put life on the scales. It is perfectly reasonable to weigh your contribution to society as a law-abiding citizen vs the harm caused to society by a recidivist criminal (80 to 90% of all criminals are recidivists!) when your life has been put on the line BY THE CRIMINAL with his anti-social and illegal act. This is part of the core of the defensive mindset. If you are chasing down a criminal in some kind of vigilante justice, that is wrong. To defend yourself against serious injury or death unilaterally brought upon you is not wrong. It is justified and reasonable.

Fine if you don’t agree. I respect your desire not to harm life. But it has been proven by legitimately done research that firearms contribute positively to lowering crime, in particular concealed carry laws. My view is that firearms should be carried by trained and responsible citizens.

P.s. - If you want to claim that the books and other materials are biased you will have to provide evidence as to why. I will not accept a statement that they simply are. Enjoy.

[Freedomx]

Jab1,

The best source above all others for statistics on concealed carry is John Lott.

John Lott Review

Multiple regression analyses are rarely the subject of heated public debate or 225-page books for laypeople. But John R. Lott, Jr.'s study in the January 1997 Journal of Legal Studies showing that concealed-carry weapons permits reduced the crime rate set off a firestorm. The updated study, together with illustrative anecdotes and a short description of the political and academic response to the study, as well as responses to the responses, makes up Lott’s informative More Guns, Less Crime.

In retrospect, it perhaps should not have been surprising that increasing the number of civilians with guns would reduce crime rates. The possibility of armed victims reduces the expected benefits and increases the expected costs of criminal activity. And, at the margin at least, people respond to changes in costs, even for crime, as Nobel-Prize winning economist [TAG]Gary Becker showed long ago. Allusions to the preferences of criminals for unarmed victims have seeped into popular culture; Ringo, a British thug in Pulp Fiction, noted off-handedly why he avoided certain targets: “Bars, liquor stores, gas stations, you get your head blown off stickin’ up one of them.”

But Lott’s actual quantification of this,** in the largest and most comprehensive study of the effects of gun control to date,** a study well-detailed in the book, provoked a number of attacks, ranging from the amateurish to the subtly misleading, desperate to discredit him. Lott takes the time to refute each argument; it’s almost touching the way he footnotes each time he telephones an attacker who eventually hangs up on him without substantiating any of their claims.

Lott loses a little focus when he leaves his firm quantitative base; as an economist, he should know that the low number of rejected background checks under the Brady Bill doesn’t demonstrate anything by itself, because some people may have been deterred from even undergoing the background check in the first place, but he attacks the bill on this ground anyway. But the conclusions that are backed by evidence–that concealed-weapons permits reduce crime, and do so at a lower cost to society than increasing the number of police or prisons–are important ones that should be considered by policymakers. --Ted Frank

The Wall Street Journal, James Bovard
…a compelling book with enough hard data that even politicians may have to stop and pay attention.

I have an interview saved where Lott explains his book and controversy it has caused. I posted a couple of excerpts on one of the other threads, but here is another sample. If you want to read the whole thing just let me know and I will email it to you. It is not that long, just too long to put in here.

Analyzing 18 years of data for more than 3,000 counties, Lott found that violent crime drops significantly when states switch from discretionary permit policies, which give local officials the authority to determine who may carry a gun, to “shall issue” or “right-to-carry” laws, which require that permits be granted to everyone who meets certain objective criteria. That conclusion, first set forth in a 1997 paper that Lott co-authored with David Mustard, now an economist at the University of Georgia, heartened defenders of gun ownership and dismayed their opponents. Arguing that “shall issue” laws are beneficial, while other gun laws are ineffective at best, Lott quickly became one of the most widely cited–and reviled–scholars in the gun control debate.
Though it was the gun issue that brought Lott notoriety, it hasn’t been the focus of his career. The 41-year-old economist, who earned his Ph.D. at UCLA, has published papers on a wide variety of topics, including professional licensing, criminal punishment, campaign finance, and public education. Last summer he published Are Predatory Commitments Credible? (University of Chicago Press), a skeptical look at theories of predatory pricing, and he is working on a book about the reputational penalties faced by criminals, a longstanding interest. In addition to his positions at Yale and the University of Chicago, Lott has served as chief economist at the U.S. Sentencing Commission and taught at UCLA and the University of Pennsylvania, among other schools. He lives in Swarth-more, Pennsylvania, with his wife and four children. Senior Editor Jacob Sullum and Washington Editor Michael Lynch talked to Lott at his Yale Law School office in mid-October.

: My guess is that [my critics] assume that the vast majority of people who hear their claims are not going to even look at the book. So they say, “Lott didn’t account for poverty.” Or they say, “Lott didn’t account for other types of gun laws.” Those are things that are easy to evaluate: Either I did, or I didn’t. But I think they feel that they can get away with making those claims, because it’ll be only a tiny fraction of 1 percent who will go and buy the book or get it from the library. I’ve never been involved in a debate like this, because in your normal academic debate, where there are 10 people involved and they’ve all read the paper, if somebody says, “Professor X didn’t account for other gun laws,” everybody else in the room would laugh, because they would know it was an absurd claim.

Glitch has some good sources also, but Lott is by far the most objective guy out there. He went into this study with no other objective but to turn out another academic study. Let me know if you want the whole interview, it is a pretty good overview of his experience with the book.

[Glitch]

I concur, Lott is great but I certainly wouldn’t say he is the most objective by far. There are lots of unbiased researchers out there.

Gary Kleck - Many books.

Morgan O Reynolds - National Center for Policy Analysis
W.W. Caruth III - National Center for Policy Analysis
James D Wright & Peter H Rossi - “Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms”

Paul Blackman - Journal of Firearms and Public Policy

Marianne Zawitz - “Guns Used in Crime” & “Firearm Injury from Crime” (Bureau of Justice)
Patsy A Klaus - “The Cost of Crime to Victims: Crime Data Brief” (Bureau of Justice)
Micheal R Rand - “Guns and Crime: Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self Defense, and Firearm Theft” (Bureau of Justice)

Ted R. Miller, Mark A. Cohen and Brian Wiersema - “The Extent and Costs of Crime Victimization: A New Look” (National Institute of Justice)

to name a few of the bigger names and ones with the most integrity and unbiased cause (i.e. not the NRA).

If you haven’t read Kleck you really should pick up his work. Real impressive. Obviously, a research with great integrity.

[ExTank]

::Jaded, Bitter Hat-ON::

Glitch, Freedom, you both left out one of the most important criteria for this message board for accepting the validity of any study even remotely supportive of the pro-gun position:

None of the people you mentioned are employees of the NRA, or any other pro-gun group, enterprise or association; nor have they received any compensation from such groups.

I’m certain, however, that raw data and facts compiled by intelligent, educated people will not get in the way of the ignorant, passionate opinions of the anti-gunners on this “Debate” board, dedicated to logical thinking, facts and citation of reputable resources.

To them, the mere fact that these researchers (many with PhD’s in Law, History, Mathematics, Medicine and Economics) support the pro-gun position is proof that they are stupid people and their opinions and research should (and often is, for the sake of these debates) be entirely disregarded.

::Jaded, Bitter Hat-OFF::

<FONT COLOR=“GREEN”>ExTank</FONT>

[Glitch]

ExTank: You are correct, of course. None the less, if a pro-gun wants to look like a fool and post unsupported personal opinion in the face of valid research that is fine by me. It weakens their credibility everytime they do so.

I will remain optimistic that the people on this board have more honor than that and will rebute with something with a little more meat.

[Spiny_Norman]

John Corrado said:

Excuse me while I revel in my American provincialism, stupidity, and/or gullibility.
Spiny Norman said:
quote:

One noticeable exception is the idiot biker gangs, who fight their turf wars with grenades and rocket launchers - and their idiot copycats.

You’re joking, right?

If not, it almost makes me glad for AK-47s…

Unfortunately, I’m not. The Hells Angels vs. Bandidos tried to kill each other with just about any weapon you can imagine.

Antitank rockets (AT-4s - stolen in Sweden)were used against clubhouses, as was belt-fed machine guns. Somebody broke into a prison and threw a grenade into another biker’s cell. Lots of pistol shootouts as well (actually, these caused most of the killings).

Nobody wanted to believe this was happening. The immediate reaction was along the lines of “That’s just not done!” but when the fact sunk in (and when they, tragically, killed a bystander), society came down on them like the proverbial ton of bricks.

A special law was passed, in effect outlawing the bikers presence in their clubhouses. (Downright outlawing any organization is a very big deal under Danish law, and this was considered a usable compromise - we Danes love compromises).

Wearing biker colours (of those specific gangs and some of their supporters) was considered sufficient reason to be stopped and searched for weapons. They were annoyed, they tried it in court (these guys are very fond of law & order when it suits them), and they lost.

After a while, the gangs realised that war interferred with their other activities, and a truce was negotiated. (And then they sulked about how everyone was still despising them…)

It’s apparently blown over now, but for a while Scandinavian bikers had a real hard time getting life insurance.

---

Norman.

Worrying is the thinking man’s form of meditation.

[ExTank]

Bikers? Worried about insurance? :eek:

Run for your lives! The insured Hell’s Angels are comin’!

<FONT COLOR=“GREEN”>ExTank</FONT>
“It’s the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.”

[jab1]

I think your previous post was directed at me, ExTank. The reason I distrust the NRA is that it seems to me they will say anything to justify their point of view, not unlike a Christian who’ll spread un-true stories that “prove” a Bible story. (Check the Great Debates thread “I am sure you will not believe” thread started by dansir to see what I mean.) They have no credibility with me. I’d rather consider data gathered by someone who had no anticipation of what he’d find. Such folks are rare, but they are out there.

For everyone: One of the reasons I am so reluctant to kill is because I’m an atheist. I don’t think we go anywhere after we die. I don’t think there is either eternal punishment or eternal reward awaiting us. If I kill someone, I will have ended that person’s existence. He won’t be coming back, either; I don’t believe in reincarnation. Dead is dead and that’s IT. I will have taken away “all he’s ever been and all he’s ever gonna be,” to quote Unforgiven, starring and directed by Clint Eastwood.

glitch, you say experts in self defense say it’s okay to “weigh human life.” First of all, I’d rather hear from experts in morals and ethics. I realize one can be expert in all three, but you didn’t mention the other two.

You say it’s justified because of what the other guy did. Each one of us is responsible for his own actions. You can’t say “He made me do it!” and have any credibility with me. No one MAKES you do ANYTHING. There’s only one person inside your head and HE calls the shots, no one else. If you kill someone, even in self defense, it’s because you wanted to. One of the things I learned in therapy is that no one does anything he does not truly want to do. Saying it was self defense is just an excuse. And I do think that some, if not most, gun owners are, indeed, looking for an excuse to kill someone, probably to prove their manhood, which means, of course, they don’t really have a manhood, but can’t face that fact. (If any of you are an exception, and I’m sure MOST of you are, then I’m not talking about YOU, am I? Don’t take personally anything not directed at you.)

One last thing: Maybe we’re asking the wrong questions here. Instead of asking why do concealed weapons reduce crime, maybe we should be asking why is there so much crime in this country? Why should carrying a concealed weapon be necessary in a civilized society? I know, I know, the crime rate is going down, but it hasn’t dropped back to the level it was in the past. (LAPD Police Chief Bernard C. Parks reported in January that while the overall murder rate in L. A. has gone down 57% in the last ten years, the percentage of homicides with firearms has gone UP from 70% to 76 %. He wants a program to curtail guns in the city.) The crime rate is also far higher here than it is in any other developed country.

Someone tell me why that is.

---

>< DARWIN >
__L___L

[Glitch]

From “Strong on Defense”:

October 1989. I was a twenty-one yr old junior at Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon. I returned to my apartment at 3 am, having been out with friends. About a half hour later, some kind of movement woke me up. A man was sitting on my bed, rubbing my legs. … He sprang back, jumped on top of me, and put a knife to my throat. With his other hand he covered my mouth, crushing my face.

… His pants were off. His knife was pressed against my neck. I remember fighting the urge to give up. He was trying to get my lets apart. Something in me was shouting, “Stop him - fight him.”

… I grabbed the knife blade. With my other hand, I struggled to gouge his eyes.

… I remember thinking, “You’ll have to cut off my fingers, I hate you.” Anger and fear drove me. I think hating him helped me hold on to the knife…

Ultimately, this story ends with the criminal getting away, but I guess you will tell me that had the person in this story killed the criminal it would not have been justifed? Yes, of course, she was just dying for somebody to sneak into her apartment and try to rape and kill her. How stupid of me and her. I guess everybody who comes under violent attack is completely unjustified in taking the life of their assailant if that is what it take, right?

Jab, your reaction is typical even if it is somewhat misguided in terms of developing the mindset required to properly defend yourself. I am afraid that with your view of surviving an attack the odds are very much against you.

Also from “Strong on Defense”:

In primitive times, this response [fight-or-flight] was necessary to survive constant physical danger. Today, while it is still necessary for surviving violence, we have become accustomed to shutting down out fight-or-flight response - we call this being civilized. Society cannot function if we go around exploding whenever we don’t get our way when someone steals our parking space… We are conditioned by society to keep this powerful force in check, to look for alternatives to releasing our explosive fight-or-flight power. That self-restraint works well for us as long as we’re dealing with other civilized human beings. It dooms us when we’re up against a criminal.

A criminal’s commands and threats of death short-circuit this natural resource by activating fear of injury… The solution is to retrain your instincts through mindsetting to instantly switch from your civilized intellectual response to your primitive fight-or-flight response.

N.B., Sanford Strong STRONGLY urges flight everytime of fight, unless flight is impossible. Even then you fight to make the opportunity to flee. However, ultimately if you must kill you must kill.

You can’t imagine threatening to kill another human being … or blowing the head off a three-year old. We can’t imagine ourselve thinking it, let alone voicing it. They [violent criminals] do both…

Acknowledging this difference between yourself and violence-addicted criminals will spur you to delvelop a reality-based point of reference.

No amount of pleading or reason or promises will help you. He will do to you whatever he has done to others in the past. If you believe him, you’ll obey him - that’s what he needs to control you. If you let fear of injury [Glitch - i.e. resisting with explosive action, see the rest of the book], you’re doomed.

Again, you are not unusual Jab. I am hardly an expert of the caliber of Sanford Strong (or others) and even I have seen it hundreds of times in the countless seminars I have taught. And really being civilized is admirable … it’s just that it’ll get you killed because when countering violent crime you have to be willing to go all the way (see Ayoob “In Gravest Extreme” for an excellent book on the necessity of lethal force, I lent it out or I would quote from that too ;))

No one MAKES you do ANYTHING.

This isn’t about being MADE to do anything. This is about what you have to do, if you have to do it and being mentally prepared to do it IF it comes to that.

Saying it was self defense is just an excuse. And I do think that some, if not most, gun owners are, indeed, looking for an excuse to kill someone, probably to prove their manhood, which means, of course, they don’t really have a manhood, but can’t face that fact.

Care to back that up with documentation or is that the unsupported personal opinion I was talking about earlier?

Frankly, you are dead wrong. I have trained hundreds of martial arts students. Only a small percentage were macho assholes out to learn how to beat people up. They don’t last long in my dojo, or they straighten up (yes, a good instructor can pick them out).

Why don’t you try going to a firearm self-defense course sometime and take a look at the people in them? You won’t find macho jerks. You’ll find everyday people who want a fighting chance when they need it. Don’t believe me, go and find out for yourself.

maybe we should be asking why is there so much crime in this country? Why should carrying a concealed weapon be necessary in a civilized society?

I couldn’t agree more. When crime vanishes so will my gun and I’ll start teaching Tae Bo instead of self defense. That made sound like sarcasm, but I mean it. I would love to live in a society that has no to extremely little crime. And I am all for working towards those solutions. Until that time; however, responsible trained citizens should be allowed to carry firearms as the best means of self and societal protection.

[ExTank]

Jab: The NRA regularly cites other people’s research, for the simple fact that NRA does little, if any, research of its own.

The reason for that is that the vast majority of scholarly work, conducted by independents who have no vested interests in the greater gun-control debate, supports the pro-gun position.

Does the fact that I can pull Dr. Lott’s study off the NRA website (among others) discredit his study? What if I ordered it from the University of Chicago Press?

What is so odd about a pro-gun group citing the independent research of a non-interested party, when it supports their position?

It’s okay for gun-control groups to try and do this, but not pro-gun groups? Why the double standard?

Jab, I’m not ranting or flaming you; in fact, I wish more anti-gunners were more like you. Reasonable. Logical.

You have stated that you have no desire to own a gun, because of your personal beliefs.

I respect that; Glitch respects that (and will gladly show you how the “pacifist” philosophy will increase your odds of being injured in a violent confrontation with a criminal assailant); Freedom respects that; almost every gun owner that I personally know will and does respect your choice not to own a gun. It’s a right you choose not to exercise.

What we’re asking is for the non-gun owning population to leave us alone.

They haven’t

We’re asking the gun-control groups to look objectively at the overwhelming mountain of evidence supporting our position.

They won’t.

Instead, they resort to fudging the numbers, fabricating outright lies, personal attacks and harrassment.

My cite? Go look at HCI’s website. Plenty of scary facts and figures showing guns are the greatest evil, the most horrific threat to our society since Adolf Hitler.

And yet, yet, they cite not a single study, not one agency at state or federal level that compiles and tracks the very data they claim supports their position.

The NRA does; as does the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Citizen’s Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Go look at the bibliographies of their facts and figures; if you don’t believe what they are telling you, you can reference the bibliographies and look it up for yourself!

It’s okay for Rosie O’Donnel, Sen. Schumer, the Clintons, the Gores, the Bradys, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and HollyWierd to resort to personal attacks on individuals and groups;
the pro-gun lobby (that’s me, BTW, with my non-tax deductible contributions) hasn’t.

It’s okay for other members of this board to attack and ridicule the pro-gunners here; when we defend ourselves, then the moderators decide to jump in and say “cool it!”.

Maybe you haven’t been around long enough to have seen this sort of behavior; I’ve been fighting it for over two years (here and on the old AOL SD site).

If I seem bitter and angry about this topic, well then, there’s only so many times you can get ridiculed, slandered and flamed for your personal beliefs before you say “ENOUGH!”.

Glitch, Freedom, TecChick and others have done a great job of carrying on in the face of ignorance (and in some cases, deliberately obtuse individuals); the more civil note of the current crop of dissenters gives me some new hope of having reasonable discussions.

But you can’t keep flogging a dead horse without your arm finally getting tired; and when someone pops up with the same tired, stupid questions like “Why don’t we just ban all guns?”, they’re likely to get their head bitten off.

::sigh::

<FONT COLOR=“GREEN”>ExTank</FONT>

[ExTank]

Jab: The NRA regularly cites other people’s research, for the simple fact that NRA does little, if any, research of its own.

The reason for that is that the vast majority of scholarly work, conducted by independents who have no vested interests in the greater gun-control debate, supports the pro-gun position.

Does the fact that I can pull Dr. Lott’s study off the NRA website (among others) discredit his study? What if I ordered it from the University of Chicago Press?

What is so odd about a pro-gun group citing the independent research of a non-interested party, when it supports their position?

It’s okay for gun-control groups to try and do this, but not pro-gun groups? Why the double standard?

Jab, I’m not ranting or flaming you; in fact, I wish more anti-gunners were more like you. Reasonable. Logical.

You have stated that you have no desire to own a gun, because of your personal beliefs.

I respect that; Glitch respects that (and will gladly show you how the “pacifist” philosophy will increase your odds of being injured in a violent confrontation with a criminal assailant); Freedom respects that; almost every gun owner that I personally know will and does respect your choice not to own a gun. It’s a right you choose not to exercise.

What we’re asking is for the non-gun owning population to leave us alone.

They haven’t

We’re asking the gun-control groups to look objectively at the overwhelming mountain of evidence supporting our position.

They won’t.

Instead, they resort to fudging the numbers, fabricating outright lies, personal attacks and harrassment.

My cite? Go look at HCI’s website. Plenty of scary facts and figures showing guns are the greatest evil, the most horrific threat to our society since Adolf Hitler.

And yet, yet, they cite not a single study, not one agency at state or federal level that compiles and tracks the very data they claim supports their position.

The NRA does; as does the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Citizen’s Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Go look at the bibliographies of their facts and figures; if you don’t believe what they are telling you, you can reference the bibliographies and look it up for yourself!

It’s okay for Rosie O’Donnel, Sen. Schumer, the Clintons, the Gores, the Bradys, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and HollyWierd to resort to personal attacks on individuals and groups;
the pro-gun lobby (that’s me, BTW, with my non-tax deductible contributions) hasn’t.

It’s okay for other members of this board to attack and ridicule the pro-gunners here; when we defend ourselves, then the moderators decide to jump in and say “cool it!”.

Maybe you haven’t been around long enough to have seen this sort of behavior; I’ve been fighting it for over two years (here and on the old AOL SD site).

If I seem bitter and angry about this topic, well then, there’s only so many times you can get ridiculed, slandered and flamed for your personal beliefs before you say “ENOUGH!”.

Glitch, Freedom, TecChick and others have done a great job of carrying on in the face of ignorance (and in some cases, deliberately obtuse individuals); the more civil note of the current crop of dissenters gives me some new hope of having reasonable discussions.

But you can’t keep flogging a dead horse without your arm finally getting tired; and when someone pops up with the same tired, stupid questions like “Why don’t we just ban all guns?”, they’re likely to get their head bitten off.

::sigh::

<FONT COLOR=“GREEN”>ExTank</FONT>

[jab1]

Okay, I’ve gained new respect for all of you, though I wonder why Freedom will complain when the Feds require him to use a seatbelt when he drives, but won’t complain when a small Georgia town requires him to buy a gun if he decides to live there. In both cases, the excuse is that it’s for his own safety. I guess one is okay because the Constitution mentions guns but not seatbelts.

ExTank I appreciate your comments. I’m not a scientist, though I know how they are supposed to (but don’t always) consider ALL the data and then decide what the truth is. Scientific opinions undergo a peer review process. No scientist who wants to be taken seriously avoids this process. If the NRA ever published a valid study that went AGAINST their POV, followed with a reasonable argument against that study, ponting out the flaws, and then allowed others to do the same, I’d have more respect for them. It would show they are open-minded. The thing is, they seem to feel that the 2nd Amendment has Divine origins and should be obeyed as if it were one of the Ten Commandments and that any disagreement with it is heresy. (One thing I disagree with is their interpretation of “a well-regulated militia” and I know Cecil’s written about that. I don’t see how one can say the government has no right to regulate militias.)

Glitch, you caught me. I have no facts to back up my opinion, it’s just personal and anecdotal. I’ve met guys who literally had gleams in their eyes as they talked about their weapons and how theey’d love to be able to commit justifiable homicide. It’s obvious their view of their own manhood was shaky and they wanted to prove to themselves they were truly men. (Women gun-owners are another matter. I’ll get to that on another post.)

Anyway, you’ve all given me food for thought. I’ll be back here Tuesday. Monday’s a holiday, y’know.

---

>< DARWIN >
__L___L

[Freedomx]

though I wonder why Freedom will complain when the Feds require him to use a seatbelt when he drives, but won’t complain when a small Georgia town

You are right, but I don’t rememeber taking that position anywhere. Did I post something like that? If I did I think I am startign to lose it

My issue here would be specifically about the difference between a Federal action and a municipal action.

The Fed’s are strictly limited in what they are allowed to do. They have certain responsibilities given to them, and everything else forbidden.

[jab1]

Originally posted by jab1:
** I don’t see how one can say the government has no right to regulate militias.)**

Change that to read: I don’t see how one can say the government has no duty or obligation to regulate militias.

And now that I think of it, I think the 2nd Amendment refers only to that, to armies and navies and civil defenses, but that does NOT mean it forbids private ownership of weapons. I think the right to private ownership would therefore be allowed under the 9th Amendment.

And didn’t the writers envision a Militia as being composed of private citizens, each responsible for his own weapon, but, when called into service, be required to follow the orders of commanding officers? Isn’t that where the militia came from that Washington assembled to handle the Whiskey Rebellion? And the idea that a person being forbidden to use his weapon in his private life would never have occurred to anyone.

Right?

---

>< DARWIN >
__L___L

[Freedomx]

Jab1,

I have enjoyed our debate. ButC’mon…

And now that I think of it, I think the 2nd Amendment refers only to that, to armies and navies and civil defenses

Have you ever read the 2nd Amndment?

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Did you catch that part about the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE?

Ask yourself this…

Did the Framers of the Constitution intend for the word PEOPLE to mean the same thing all the way through the Bill of Rights?
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/cons.bill.html

Take a quick look through them, and look at every place it say PEOPLE. Now look at every place it says STATES.

Look dude…

People = people.

It is a very simple concept. This arguement is the lamest of all the anti-constitution arguements out there.

[Glitch]

they talked about their weapons and how theey’d love to be able to commit justifiable homicide. It’s obvious their view of their own manhood was shaky and they wanted to prove to themselves they were truly men. (Women gun-owners are another matter. I’ll get to that on another post.)

I wish I could say you are wrong, but on this you are right. There are some people who give gun owners a bad name. I doubt Freedom would agree with me, but they shouldn’t have guns. IMO, they fail the “responsible” test (and likely the “trained” test too. My experience has been that trained gun owners have respect for their guns as a tool, not as a means of vengence). Look at it this way, those who view a gun as a means of vigilantism also hurt their chances of survival, so next time you meet such a person feel free to share the following with them.

From “Strong on Defense”:

Instead of escaping, men try to overpower the attacker. That’s the reason more men are killed at the crime scenes than women. Forget the traditional revenge attitude of “Catch 'em, hold 'em, make 'em pay.” The odds are against you. …

The “Catch 'em, hold 'em, make 'em pay” reflex we men have leaves many of out families fatherless. If you and your loved ones are safe, the crook is not worth going after and he’s damn sure not worth dying for. Some of the most lump-in-your-throat places I’ve been are private homes with husbands and fathers lying dead in a woman’s arms after giving his life to catch a dirtbag breaking into his parked car.

This is an incredibly selfish thing to do. If this is your attitude do your signifcant other and kids (if you got any) a favor and get over the macho b/s.

OSU!

For the record, I do not view gun ownership as a right guarenteed by the 2nd amendment. I personally think it is meant to apply to para-military organization. I think gun ownership simply makes sense from a self defense perspective and should be allowed by law but requiring a certain degree of responsiblity and training on behalf of the applicant. I see gun ownership as akin to a driver’s license. We don’t let people drive a car if they cannot demonstrate a certain degree of training and responsibility. The same, IMO, applies to owning and carrying a gun.