RTF, you stated the Brady Bill was not intended to reduce gun violence. I’m ashamed of you for posting such an outright fabrication. And I’m ashamed at the rest of you for letting him get away with it. Maybe, then, you can tell me why this bill is titled, “Gun Violence Prevention Act of 1994”.
See this link for the text of the so-called Brady Bill.
See also:
Hmmm, everything in here is about violence and crime. I don’t see one word about saving lives or the human cost of firearms. In fact, the words life, lives, save and saving aren’t even in it. This bill was most certainly introduced as a measure to reduce crime and violence. Seems pretty cut and dried to me.
As such, Mr. Zambezi is correct. The Brady Bill is an utter failure.
And it seems that if the pro-gun types were half as concerned about this as they pretend to be in gun debates, there would be a powerful lobby for improved public transportation, and other legislation in favor of highway safety.
Every damned gun thread I’ve been on, the pro-gun people have brought up cars as a red herring. And I’m not using that term lightly.
Who’s for it, and who’s against? Gun control is pretty much a liberal cause, excepting a fair number of police, who otherwise tend to be conservative; defending gun rights is pretty much a conservative cause.
Public transportation funding? Liberals for, conservatives against.
Lower speed limits? Back when it was an issue, liberals for, conservatives against.
Automobile safety legislation, from Unsafe At Any Speed to the present? Liberals for, conservatives against.
You can’t say we’ve been ignoring this cause. We welcome your participation.
Demise, you asked me for a cite earlier on those DOJ stats that show you’re less likely to be killed as part of the commission of a criminal enterprise than in an escalated argument or dispute between more-or-less law-abiding citizens. Try this DOJ page.
Some other threads where this stuff has been hashed out before - with links in them, which is always helpful - are here and here. (Thanks to junebeetle for most of the links.) Some of the good ones, besides the DOJ page above (back up to http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ for a site overview), are the Centers for Disease Control at http://www.cdc.gov/nchswww/data/nvs47_19.pdf (get your free Adobe reader first if you don’t have one), http://www.nra.org for one side of the debate, and the Violence Policy Center at http://www.vpc.org for the other.
Now I’m gettin’ the hell out of here before another gun thread takes up large chunks of my time. UncleBeer, I’ll buy you one at Norfolk, and we can talk about the Brady Law there if you want. But time has been scarce both here and at work, so now I’m going to make like Sir Robin, and bravely run away.
I brought it up because, unlike guns, cars are a familiar object to most people. Most people don’t have a kneejerk fear reaction to cars. It also puts things into perspective, which is something that liberals lack when discussing guns.
I don’t really worry about deaths from car accidents. I’ve accepted that they happen, and are a fact of life.
**
Maybe you mean this page? Where it lists homicides by guns caused by argument as 3635 in 1998? And lists other homicides where a gun was used as 3957?
From these numbers, it doesn’t look like “you’re more likely to be killed by a previously law-abiding citizen who’s having a bad day”. In fact, you’re less likely, even if a little. And, as the Australia study proves, “arguments” that are heated enough to turn fatal will turn fatal whether a gun is used or not. Instead of reaching for that 9mm, the butcher knife is used.
All of em, huh? What’s your definition of accidental? If you mean (from Mirriam-Webster) “an unforeseen and unplanned event”, maybe so. But this is not the right context for that definition whatsoever. When you are talking about deaths from gun accidents (and we are, at least the DOJ and I are), this is the definition that fits: “an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance”.
**
This is rather patronizing, as I have posted data from both the CDC and BJS websites already, and I think I can figure out where the NRA website is on my own, thanks. I did find the links to the other threads on the topic to be very educational though. I didn’t realize the lengths people would go to protect their own ignorance until now. There are some mighty blissful people out there.
Anyhow, we know what happened to Sir Robin, don’t we? Maybe if he had a gun, he wouldn’t have been eaten.
Sir Robin wasn’t eaten. Brother Maynard was eaten. Sir Robin was tossed into the Gorge of Eternal Peril (or whatever the hell it was) after being unable to tell the capital of Assyria.
I have something to say to all of you who claim to carry a gun for “safety”.
Bullsh*t.
This is about trying to feel more powerful, and you damn well know it. If you were that concerned about safety, every one of you would have safety bars and padding around your bathtubs and showers, you would wear helmets in your car, none of you would smoke, alcohol would never touch your lips, and jaywalking would be a felony.
You need a gun for defense? You know, I have yet to find a gun out there that throws up a magical shield that stops bullets. You are not looking for defense, you are looking to become as offensive as whatever boogyman you might believe in. Afraid that someone might one day slip through a slip through a bedroom window and steal something? You get a smal handgun and keep it next to you.
Afraid of getting mugged or raped? You get something that is easy to conceal, but accurate only at close range.
Afraid that the government is full of (fill in your own conspiracy theory here)? You start collecting all matter of illegal and dangerous weaponry and start plotting against the very same government you supposedly elected.
The founding fathers were not gods, and could not possibly see what we would do with the right to bear arms. And what we have done is absolutely shameful, IMHO.
Fine, you’ve said it. Feel better now? As vehemently as you feel about it, you are still wrong.
No I wouldn’t. I do not live in constant fear of anything. Shit happens. Sometimes shit will happen no matter what precautions you take. I wear a seatbelt. It won’t help me in a 60mph crash, but not all crashes are 60mph, are they? I don’t think a gun is a magical device that will always protect me, but it there are situations where it will.
Really? You mean mine don’t work like that? Damn. Anyhow, my dictionary shows one of the definitions for defense as "capability of resisting attack ". Maybe your method of resisting attack consists of waving your hands in the air and screaming “oh you naughty bad guy”. Mine doesn’t.
Fear of being stolen from is not the only reason I have a gun in my bedroom. Some criminals do not care what atrocities they commit during their crimes. They are just as likely to shoot you and leave no witnesses as not.
If more women carried guns there would be less rapes. Period. Why is this bad?
Don’t be a tard. You may be the conspiracy theorist here.
Heh, that’s right. Been at least 5 years since I’ve seen the movie. Thanks for that clarification. Ok, so, maybe if Sir Robin’s bard had a gun, he wouldn’t have been eaten?
This is a very limited and small-minded outlook, slythe. Safety bars, padding, helmets in the car, etc. etc. etc. are all very unrealistic measures that would make day-to-day living far more complicated than it needs to be. Carrying a gun, by contrast, is a very simple and painless method of ensuring that some random SOB isn’t going to blow you away.
Again, minimizing the scope of possibilities. That’s the sort of problem that would arise if you and Mr. Criminal already have your guns pointed at each other in a standoff (the kind of thing you see in movies and on TV… maybe that’s what influenced your post?).
Think of it this way… you’re at home, you’re sleeping, you hear a window shatter. The door opens. Footsteps rush into the house, through the living room, dining room, kitchen, getting a lay of the area. Eventually, this intruder will find his/her way to where you are. What do you do? You can A: cower in the closet with a blanket over your head, or you can B: reach into your bedtable and pull out your Colt .45. This intruder is running up the stairs to the bedroom, you open your door, point the gun at him, and shout, “DON’T MOVE!”
In other gun control threads, it has been indicated that there are over 2,000,000 instances a year where a gun is simply SHOWN during a home invasion, and the intruder runs away (if you really need me to go dig up the exact quotes, just ask). Sounds like good preventive medicine to me… AND nobody gets hurt, t’boot.
Again, you’re oversimplifying the issue. I assume that you’re referring to the old “A government cannot subdue an armed populace”. I don’t know why you have trouble with this… it’s been shown to be accurate over the past century (Germany, Turkey, Russia, numerous African nations…). True, there ARE a lot of nutcases that take this idea one step too far (active measures rather than passive measures), but pointing to them and saying that everyone who likes guns is a nutcase does a grave injustice, and hardly follows the guidelines of “fighting ignorance”.
Let’s see now. Do I believe the 2,000,000 “Me, too!” stories that cannot possibly be verified, or do I look at all of the very real reports of people accidently shooting friends and family members, and all of the verified reports of family members shooting each other out of anger and/or dispair? Think about it for a second, o.k.? Police come to investigate Joe or Jane Blow firing a shot into the night. Do you think that Joe/Jane is going to say:
“I thought I heard something, and rather than do what I would do if I weren’t armed (ignore the noise or take a look to see if the neighbor’s cat is trying to come in again), I fired blindly into the night.” or…
“Uh, a rilly large man wearing a mask tried to crawl through my bedroom window, so I took my gun from the locked cabinet, took the ammo from another locked drawer that is nowhere near the gun, carefully loaded the gun, pointed it at the menacing intruder, and told him that he had very well leave now. He came at me with a large crowbar, so I fired a warning shot. He jumped out the window and ran away.”
Just try to remember that, if you DO fire off that very deadly weapon(outside of target practice, of course), chances are the person you kill or wound is going to be someone you know.
Tracer, you haven’t heard about Patrick Dorismond, a security guard from New York City, have you? After a night out in a club, he was approached by someone who asked him about where does he buy drugs. After saying no, and apparently irked by the person’s demeanor, Patrick took a swing at him. The person’s buddies came, one of them with a gun. Patrick went to struggle against the one holding the gun, and it went off, killing him. Despite acknowledging that Patrick most likely never knew that the people he fought were acually undercover detectives working Operation Condor, the grand jury decided not to indict the cop whose gun wound up killing Dorismond.
To futher compund his family’s anguish, my boss Mayor Giuliani, in his zest to defend cops, released Dorismond’s juvenile records, which may be illegal and is under review. Giuliani also said that he “was not a choir boy”, although it turned out that he was. The backlash that came from this tragedy is a big factor on Giuliani quitting the Senate Race.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Demise *
[
If more women carried guns there would be less rapes. Period. Why is this bad?
]
??? Proof please???
This arguement, I fear is similar to the abortion debate (in that each side believes stongly about the validity of their argument, but both are arguing from a different perspecitive of reality). both sides must attempt to predict what MIGHT have happened in the past and what WOULD happen in the future if/then. IF only a teacher at Columbine had been carrying a handgun, THEN maybe only the two gun totin’ teens would have been kiiled. IF there’d been closer regs on sales in those flea markets, THEN those gun totin’ teens wouldn’t have gotten ahold of guns in the first place. IF some one broke into my house and I had a gun THEN (depending on which side you’re on) A. I’d shoot the bad thug who broke in or B. the bad thug would turn out to be my teenager.
One thing I’ve always wondered about, tho’ Ok, so we’re eating at Mickey D’s, some gun totin’ thug comes in with a weapon, threatening to rob/mayhem us all, and the granny next to me pulls out a gun and starts shootin’ at him, only her aim is bad and she kills my sister along with the gun totin’ thug, now, am I supposed to chaulk that one up to “thank GOD granny had a gun” ???
Please don’t be dense. If you can’t see the common sense inherent here, maybe you could read my post earlier that had this information:
*This is also from the JAMA study (bolding mine):
“The only previous study of the association between homicide and the national Brady Act found a statistically insignificant reduction in the murder rate of 2.3% in the treatment states compared with control states, and statistically significant increases in rape and aggravated assault equal to 3.9% and 3.7%, respectively.”*
So, when there was a 5-day waiting period for a gun, more rapes occurred. Hmmm. Also, I would think that getting lead slug in the testes would tend to put a damper a would-be rapist’s libido. Dunno, maybe I’m wrong.
I find it interesting how people begin making up hysterical stories when they have no real argument to put forward. You watch too many movies, you know, the ones with the ridiculously small, wrinkled grannies carrying ridiculously large caliber handguns. Don’t you find it hilarious when they fall down after shooting because of the recoil? Sometimes I laugh so hard that I lose bowel control.
This has nothing to do with gun control. The person whose gun was fired was a cop, who would keep their weapon whether guns were banned or not.
I would say this is a fine example of police excess in the asinine war on drugs, but it is not pertinent here.
Slythe, your post is absurd. Is it possible for you to respond without hysteria on this topic? The examples that I’ve seen you post here and on other gun control threads are extreme and laughable. If you really think that’s how things occur, then you are very ignorant on the subject. We do not live in a movie.
So Demise, in essense you have nothing to support your side of this argument than, “your comments are so silly, and common sense says I’m right, so I don’t have to argue the points!” We are to believe that people with insufficient training NEVER shoot the wrong people, family members never shoot each other out of anger or mistaken identity, etc…just because you say so.
[sarcasm]I’m convinced![/sarcasm]
Maybe you should read the rest of my posts if you think I have nothing to support my argument. You on the other hand seem to be using nothing but your exaggerated imagination to argue with, and this post is no different.
I never said this. I have never even come close to saying this. Accidents unfortunately happen.
However, I have said that most of the time, if someone gets mad enough to kill, it will not matter if they have a gun or not.
Please don’t be dense. If you can’t see the common sense inherent here, maybe you could read my post earlier that had this information:
*This is also from the JAMA study (bolding mine):
“The only previous study of the association between homicide and the national Brady Act found a statistically insignificant reduction in the murder rate of 2.3% in the treatment states compared with control states, and statistically significant increases in rape and aggravated assault equal to 3.9% and 3.7%, respectively.”*
So, when there was a 5-day waiting period for a gun, more rapes occurred. Hmmm. Also, I would think that getting lead slug in the testes would tend to put a damper a would-be rapist’s libido. Dunno, maybe I’m wrong. **
Let me try and point out, again: the fact that two stats are given in the same study DOES NOT indicate causality. The brady bill was ONE factor in the study. That, too, does NOT indicate that it was the CAUSE of each change.
The slug in the testes, assumes that the gun totin’ woman could actually grab her gun from where ever and accurately put a shot some where useful. I asked for proof of your contention that it would. You simply point out that a bullet would probably stop somebody. I’m looking for the EVIDENCE that supports your contention that a woman who is legally carrying a weapon, who then is attacked , is able to successfully thwart her attacker with said gun. Where’s all your statistics of gun permit states on the subject or is this just your assumption, too?
**And I find it interesting that you don’t even address the question, which is (without the pretty picture): Where is your evidence that the gun totin population have better aim/training than the thug, and therefore would NOT be putting more people at risk from firearms??? Simply put : one person with a gun vs. however many legally toting? why do you assume that the legal gun owners WOULD NOT shot other people??? How can you really believe that adding to the number of guns/bullets flying around would LESSEN the number of innocents dead? And, again, please answer the basic thought - should I feel so much better that some one is killed by a bystander fending off the crook than if they’d been killed by the crook???
slythe, I’m disappointed with you. I post an argument, and the best retort you can give is “That’s not proven”? And then you go and accuse someone of doing the exact same thing? Seems rather hypocritical, my friend. Your claims (cited by Demise, above) fall on the statistical extreme of the gun situation. Care to provide us with some statistics to back up these “very real reports of people accidently shooting friends and family members”? Not that I doubt that they happen… although I’m sure you were going to accuse me of denying that gun accidents happen at all. Or do I believe your horror stories which cannot possibly be verified?
Yer quite the spin-doctor, Mr. slythe.
Anyway, on to Mr. Wring…
Wring, we’re NOT trying to prove that the population is better trained than the random thugs out there… we’re trying to GET to population to become better trained! How knowledgeable with firearms do you think a person is going to become with all the extremist horror stories being perpetuated by the less-intelligent denizens of society running around out there? How knowledgeable with firearms do you think a person is going to become if he’s not allowed to TOUCH a gun?
You’re assuming and refuting an argument where there is none.
We can’t assume that. But we can take as many steps towards preventing accidents as we can. For example, I feel confident that I have a miniscule chance of accidently shooting someone, or having a gun accidently go off at all. Why? Because I’m very familiar with guns (well, the guns we have, anyway). I respect them, as tools and as potential weapons. I don’t play around with them; I don’t treat them lightly. However, I don’t treat them with unwarranted fear, either.
SPOOFE, I think that my greatest objection is that the gun manufacturers are trying, through scare tactics and “patriotism”, to flood our society with handguns. Maybe if everyone recieved the proper training in both how to fire a handgun and when to fire a handgun, THEN went out and got one, I wouldn’t fear for my life the next time I didn’t go through that green light at the intersection fast enough for the “bubba” sitting a quarter-inch away from my back bumper. Instead, everyone gets their little “equalizer”, then maybe they recieve some training on how to use it.
In 1997, University of Chicago economics professor John Lott published a book, More Guns, Less Crime. The book was based on 18 years of data from 3,000 counties in the United States, with the data weighted by population. (Disclosure: Lott’s position at the time was a chair funded by the Olin Foundation, which is endowed by the Olin Corporations, which manufactures, among other things, Winchester ammunition.)
Lott’s research demonstrated 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.” (from http://www.reason.com/0001/fe.js.cold.html.)
Are you actually suggesting than an armed woman is not a deterrent for a rapist?
This is a quote from the study that pldennison posted a link to:
“The results imply that ‘‘shall issue’’ laws coincide with fewer murders, rapes, aggravated assaults, and rapes.”
And:
“rapists are particularly susceptible to this form of deterrence.”
Good enough? Read the study if you want exact numbers.
I didn’t address the question because it is facetious conjecture, but since you insist… Do you have any clue what the process to get a concealed carry weapon permit is? In Texas, you take a written test, then you have to pass a timed shot trial. You have to make accurate shots within a certain amount of time, only a few seconds. If you are not accurate, you will not be issued a CCW permit. This means that a CCW holder would have “better aim/training than the thug”. Does this mean that an accident will never happen? Hell no, like I’ve said before, accidents happen. They are unfortunate.
This process is similar, BTW, to the firearm qualification that police go through. Interesting then that the police would kill more than ten times as many innocents than the armed public, eh?
This is also from the study refered to above:
“In fact, police accidentally killed 330 innocent individuals in 1993, compared to the mere 30 innocent people accidentally killed by private citizens who mistakenly believed the victim was an intruder. John R. Lott, Jr., Now That the Brady Law Is Law, You Are Not Any Safer than Before, Philadelphia Inquirer, February 1, 1994, at A9.”
Should you feel better? How the hell should I know how you feel? I guess you could possibly take some small solace in the fact that there was no criminal intent. Would you feel better if a piano fell on your “sister” and killed her? Or maybe if she spontaneously combusted? She is still dead, no matter the cause.
