Ok, so we agree that waiting periods don’t work. Before, it seemed like you were arguing, in essence, that waiting periods haven’t been given a fair try.
**[
Don’t worry, I won’t make that argument. You’ve offered an explanation as to why waiting periods don’t work. I disagree with that explanation, but I’m not sure it matters.
Given that waiting periods don’t work, I hope you are in favor of repealing statutes that impose waiting periods.
Feel free to propose some other form of gun control, along with evidence that the approach will work.
**
Again, I disagree with you, but I’m not sure it matters. You seem to be conceding that state-level gun purchase regulation doesn’t work. I hope you favor repealing state-level gun purchase control laws
And feel free to suggest a federal approach, along with evidence that that approach will work.
Such evidence might include an analysis of nationwide crime rates before and after federal gun-control legislation; or perhaps nationwide before and after crime rates in some other nation.
Nope, your example does NOT show a waiting period working. It specifically says “a waiting period might have altered her state of mind…” Requiring her to wear a pink tutu before buying a gun might have altered her state of mind too, but simply asserting something is not the same thing as supporting it. I would also note that the criminal decided to “use it in a shooting spree 24 hours later” - that’s already 24 hours to ‘cool off’, do you really think that if she was still nuts after 24 hours she’d be fine in another day or four?
So, you haven’t even provided a single example of a waiting period stopping a crime, much less evidence that on the balance they would prevent more crimes than they allow.
Your proposed ‘cooling off’ period is, at least in part directed against domestic violence. Trying to dodge an example of the deaths caused by such laws because it involves domestic violence, while stating that waiting periods would help in domestic violence cases (which are generally done in a rage), is just a bit inconsistent.
If that’s really the case, then why do you support waiting periods, which I have shown have resulted in women and children being killed in at least one case, despite a complete lack of evidence that they actually prevent crimes? Why do GC advocates routinely take the position that a rise in violent crime rates is OK as long as gun crime rates go down?
The simple fact that no universal reporting requirement has ever been held to violate the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination. Haynes was decided the way it was because virtually the only target of the registration requirement at issue was those people who would have had to admit they were breaking the law. Like I said in the linked thread, that certainly is not the case with tax returns and customs declaration forms, which everybody has to fill out truthfully–and you certainly can be prosecuted and convicted for lying on those or failing to fill them out even if you try to invoke the Fifth Amendment.
But if you prefer the Supreme Court to explain itself, here you are:
Incidentally, regarding your reasoning that a law cannot be unconstitutional on its face unless every application of it would be unconstitutional? That doctrine (which I can’t quite put a name to, without my old Con Law outline) wasn’t developed until years after Haynes–it’s a product of the Court under Rhenquist.
I don’t know what you’re smoking, but I didn’t write the statement you quoted, so stop putting other people’s words in my mouth. I’ve stated in the past that I will not be engaging in further debate with you, listing my reasons (in the main: you provide no support for your assertions, even when asked ad nauseum, you deny your own arguments even when they’re quoted back at you, and you simply ignore repeated questions about parts of your arguments which are unlear).
I will gladly resume responding to your posts if you address the issues I raised in the last GD GC thread, otherwise just follow the rules of the board and don’t falsely attribute quotes to me.
No, I didn’t say that. My point was that their effect is likely to be so small as to be statistically insignificant. I’d be willing to guess that cooling-off periods save a dozen or so lives per year, and that they probably cost some small(er) number each year. Those numbers are simply too small to show up in the statistics. Doesn’t mean I think waiting periods are a bad idea.
Nope. I’m in favor of nationwide gun purchase laws, primarily universal background checks and comprehensive gun registration. Repealing state laws because they are undermined by other states’ laws is just a race to the bottom.
IMHO, gun legislation shouldn’t be based on a “guess” about a “statistically insignificant” matter. Feel free to disagree.
**
But if it doesn’t have any effect on the number of shootings, then who cares?
Or do you think that some states’ gun purchase regulation laws work? Which states? And where’s your evidence?
In any event, I’d love to see evidence that national gun control will work. As I said before, the simplest and most convincing demonstration would be to look at crime rates before and after.
I think you meant to address this to me, minty. Anyway, as far as I can tell, the requirements of reporting illegal income on IRS forms and reporting on customs declaration forms have never been formally challenged. I’ve found cases that state that you can’t exercise your Fifth Amendment rights by refusing to file a tax return at all, but nothing that indicates that a person may properly refuse to answer the question while filing an otherwise-lawful return.
But we’re starting to really deviate from gun control here.
The impact of the expiration of the Brady Waiting Period has already impacted the Sleater family: Anne was the victim of a disturbed woman who had never owned a gun but was able to purchase one in less than an hour and use it in a shooting spree 24 hours later.
[quote]
So this woman STILL waited 24 hours after buying her gun to go on a shooting spree, but if only she had had to wait another day or two, she would have been harmless? Right from the start, this sounds like a poor example. You need to show a stronger correlation than that - like, two women fighting, one drives off in a rage and shows up half an hour later with a gun and starts shooting. For someone to wait a full day after being in the possession of a gun before shooting someone else is not a particularly good example of an impulse crime.
How would it alter her state of mind? Since she had already waited a day, it seems she did this rather coldly.
How would a waiting list alert her family? Is the gun store required to contact her family and inform them that she was planning on buying a gun?
How are the police going to find out about her history of mental illness? In fact, after doing a bit of research, I find that the gun store DID do a background check on this woman, and she passed. The Bureau of Identification specifically stated that the woman was an acceptable candidate for gun purchase.
Why are anti-gun people always so freaking dishonest with their statistics and writing? It drives me nuts. If your position isn’t strong enough to convince the public without resorting to lies, innuendo, and appeals to emotion, you need to re-think your position. We’ve even got historians like Michael Bellesiles ‘cooking the books’ and distorting the historical record to try to support anti-gun positions.
In this particular case, it turns out that the shooter, Di Kieo Kay, had quite a long history of mental illness. To suggest that a three-day waiting period would have magically ‘altered her state of mind’ when she had a long history of acts just like this is disingenuous.
The only thing that would have stopped this woman from going on a shooting spree would have been to prevent her from buying a handgun at all. But that opens up the troubling can of worms about having the government be able to peruse your private medical records, and deny you a gun based on the judgement of someone that you shouldn’t have one. That’s not politically palatable, so the Brady Bunch try to show this as an example of a case where a waiting list would have changed the outcome. I don’t see it.
I also note that she was arrested once before for threatening a station manager with a knife, so it appears that she might have been able to kill someone whether or not she had a gun. For example, driving onto the sidewalk of a busy street, which has happened more than once and caused multiple deaths.
See what I mean? The implication here is that this woman bought a gun without a background check. She had one - and passed. That’s an argument for a more stringent background check, not a waiting period. Be honest.
As for immediate access to guns causing more suicides, I don’t buy it, and I’ve never seen hard data to suggest that it was true. GUN suicides might go down, because duh, people who want to kill themselves don’t have a gun. So they kill themselves some other way.
This same argument could be used to ban apartment balconies. I used to live in a high-rise with a balcony, and it was apparent to me all the time that I lived only a few feet away from sudden death. Can you find some statistics suggesting that the rate of suicides among apartment dwellers with balconies is higher than for apartment dwellers without them? If not, the ‘spontaneous suicide’ argument isn’t going to carry much weight with me.
My wife works with suicidal patients, and they have lost a few. It is rarely sudden. Most suicides happen after much planning, and usually after several failed or aborted attempts. And there are so many ways to kill yourself that I just can’t believe that gun waiting periods would make a huge difference.
That leaves us with ‘impulse’ domestic violence, and I would agree that quick access to guns has an effect - but probably not the one you are thinking of. I suspect that instant, easy access to guns would not result in more men killing their wives and families, but in more battered women shooting an abusive husband who is beating them. The dynamic of abusive relationships often results in the woman backing down and being apologetic and submissive - AFTER the fight. During it, both are doing lots of yelling and screaming, but the woman is at a distinct physical disadvantage and winds up taking the brunt of the attack.
Guns might increase the number of domestic shootings slightly, but then, they also might DEcrease the number of abusive wife-beatings in the first place.
My understanding is that antis generally oppose “shall issue” concealed carry laws. It almost seems like they are more interested in spiting gun owners than in reducing crime.
is easily explained. “Shall carry” is a creature of the mid-90s, when violent crime rates fell dramatically across the nation. Correlation != causation, and all that.
Minty, perhaps you should follow the link. Lott accounted for as many confounding variables as he could. And overall decreases in crime rates don’t matter, unless you can show that the crime rate in the ‘shall issue’ states was decreasing faster than the rate in other states. Because the Lott study compared violent crime in states without shall issue as well. Thus, the correlation is cancelled out. That’s what proper economic studies do. Lott did this well enough that I have NEVER heard a solid refutation of his data despite the fact that the book is a lightning rod and many, many academics have tried to tear it apart. There have been some disagreements with some of his methodologies, but I’ve never heard anyone claim that his conclusions were wrong.
On the other hand, Michael Bellesiles wrote a book called “Arming America” that was hailed by the left as a hugely important book in deconstructing the ‘myth’ that the second amendment was intended to apply to citizens. Only, it turned out that his book is almost a complete fabrication from cover to cover, and it has been thoroughly debunked, even by people who agreed with his goals.
Books like Lott’s and Bellesile’s come under greater-than-usual scrutiny. Lott’s book survived with its reputation intact - Bellesiles’ didn’t.
That thought actually occurred to me too. (Although some states have had “shall issue” for a long time.)
In any event, it’s certainly possible that more data is needed to know if “shall issue” has a negative effect on mass shootings. It’s also possible that the study Sam Stone cites is intellectually dishonest in the same way that so many anti-gun studies are.
On the other hand, my understanding is that the evidence is pretty strong that “shall issue” does not cause an increase in crime. (Feel free to correct me!) Given this, it is frustrating to me that antis continue to oppose it. It also makes me question the motives of the antis.
To clear up my position on domestic violence and gun control:
I am not convinced that stricter gun laws in general or a waiting period specifically, would decrease domestic violence. I am not a strong advocate of gun control laws. Nor, would I jump off a building if we created a modern day version of “Dodge City”.
I conceed that I have not provided the kind of “suitable” evidence required to convince those opposed to stricter gun laws, that they should change their position. Each source I have listed has been dismissed.
What I suggest is not a certainty, merely a possibility. Most of the decisions I make are not based on certainty or statistics.
Clearly, what we are doing now, is not working.
Reducing violent crime is a challenge our society will continue to struggle with. The answer will not be found in any one solution. I think policy makers should look at the issue objectively and propose a plan that emphasizes:
Treatment for addicts and alcoholics.
Access to treatment for mental illnesses / institutions for those that require it / half-way houses for those that can function with some supervision.
People that use guns in criminal acts should serve their entire sentence.
Quality after school programs for kids.
Stricter gun laws / background checks / waiting period
More cops and better pay for cops.
In regard to the concealed carry - If a person completes the training to get a license to carry a concealed weapon, fine.
BTW - those of you who oppose gun control, is it your position that guns should be sold to anyone or what?
