Where murder is a-okay, as long as it’s not done with a gun.
Britain never had as much gun crime with us, even with very loose gun control. Therefore, it is more relevant to look at the RELATIVE increases and decreases in gun crime than absolute numbers.
But all penal laws merely treat symptoms and not the disease. Putting someone in jail for stealing does absolutely nothing about what causes people to steal in the first place. And it doesn’t seem to deter too well either. The prisons are full of people convicted of drug offenses, which continue unabated.
Now, now. No need for that.
The British have never had a particularly powerful gun culture. I guess it interfered with their tea and rugby. But it’s important to keep in mind that comparisons between two different countries doesn’t really work when it comes to aspects of culture.
Well, Project Exile sure seems to work well to deter criminals. And it incorporates the whole “Enforce laws vigorously” notion that some gun proponents have been endorsing for a while…
In case you missed it the first time, I like Project Exile (though I suspect the falling gun crime rate in Richmond has rather more to do with the economy, improved policing, and other factors that have caused crime to drop all over the country than it does with Project Exile specifically). I just believe there are additional steps, including registration and universal background checks, that would be of further benefit in reducing gun crime, at little or not cost to law-abiding citizens.
As to the pick-a-country thing, I quite agree. It’s cringe-inducing to see such comparisons made, when there are dozens and dozens of factors that need to be considered before meaningful comparisons may be drawn. I was being glib in response to an overly-simplistic analysis.
It seems to me that the causes of crime are complex enough that to pick out some factor, like Project Exile, as being the cause of a change in crime rates can easily lead us astray.
Does Project Exile reduce gun crimes because it deters or because it removes, at least temporarily, those who use guns to commit crimes thereby reducing the supply of such criminals? I guess we’ll see when those who are incarcerated now for gun crimes are released, which they will be sooner or later.
First off Minty, since you have started complaining about me not addressing your points in the other GDGC thread, would you mind addressing the two of mine which I raised in the OP and you neglected to cover in all of your posts? The closest you’ve come is to highlight your odd definition of safety (significantly higher violent crime, but using strength, clubs, knives, etc. instead of guns).
No, that’s a flawed analogy and I think you know it. A better analogy would be asking why speed-control proponents were asking for a complete ban on an already tightly regulated car that hasn’t been used for speeding by any owners.
And, of course, makes it easier
Just to clarify something from the other thread - your definition of ‘reasonable’ gun control includes requiring someone to own a gun business (and so legally have the appropriate FFL) before being allowed to own a semi-automatic weapon, correct?
Except that it doesn’t seem to work that way in the real world. Or are you going to show some statistics like I requested in my OP showing gun registries used to solve crimes, or even to arrest criminals?
Before I send a memo to my friends about their alleged fixation, why not tell me exactly how mentioning the history of legally owned machine guns in the US is ‘spurious and misleading’? You might want to bear in mind exactly what I said in my original post, especially the fact that it objected to gun-controllers wanting to ban the machine guns which are currently legal.
Speculation on what would ‘outrage’ you is only appropriate for the pit. However, the question remains - why the desire from proponents of ‘common sense’ gun control to ban the legal machine guns when the legislation is such a “success story” that there have been zero crimes committed with legally held machine guns?
“If it saves one life” is often heard from gun-control proponents, yet the desire to ban machine guns doesn’t even fit that absurd standard - there hasn’t been one innocent life taken with a legally held machine gun (other than a single one taken by someone who would be exempt from such a ban), yet every gun control conversation I’ve read or been in has at least one gun control proponent arguing for a complete ban on privately owned machine guns.
That’s a nice little story, do you have any cites to back it up or did you just invent it from thin air? Yes Virginia, automatic weapons are still used in crime, and I’ll need more than a bald assertion from a gun-control proponent to believe those numbers.
That’s a VERY strange definition of safety that you’re using. What you’re saying is that although Britain has a higher violent crime rate, the fact that less of that violent crime is committed using firearms means that it’s safer. Still, I’m not all that suprised - it’s pretty typical for gun-control advocates to absolutely refuse to look at violent crime rates, and to instead either concentrate on one specific (often low-occurance) crime or to ‘define away’ a large chunk of violent crime. Just to be clear, when you talk about implementing your ideal gun control for “public safety”, your goal is to reduce crimes involving guns, even at the expense of increasing overall violent crime? If not, could you explain your differing use of the term ‘safe’?
BTW, got a cite for that assertion about frequency? While I wouldn’t be suprised if it was true (at least for now), I also haven’t actually seen numbers on it.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by sqweels *
**It’s ridiculous to portray regisitration–simply filling out a brief form–as somehow burdensome to the law abiding.
It’s ridiculous to portray registration as filling out a brief form, since that’s not neccesarily what it is. Aside from the licensing requirement that people often want to tack on to registration, in many cases registration involves multiple forms and a long ‘processing’ process, as well as the risk of ‘while they’re technically legal, we no longer accept registration for these guns’. If we didn’t have the example of Chicago to show us what registration can involve, us pro-gun types might be a little less suspicious of registration schemes.
Then again, it’s hard to trust the gun control crowd. Aside from the rhetoric and lack of numbers, they never seem to be satisfied with a particular level of control. As I pointed out in my OP, gun controllers aren’t satisfied with a system where not a single civlian-owned gun of a certain type has been used in a crime, but still routinely call for machine guns to be completely banned.
I don’t have to worry that changing the steering wheel on my car or expanding the gas tank constitute a felony…
Could you at least provide an argument for this? Since ‘straw man’ purchases are already registered on a form 4473, I’m kind of curious as to how that would be accomplished.
Of course, if the gun you stole or bought hot was reported as stolen, that’s also evidence that you committed a crime. And how are the police going to check that illicit gun’s registration without some other probable cause to look into it?
Also, in many places it’s easier to get a gun illegally than legally, so the legal way is not neccesarily the easy way. Certainly in other countries like Australia or England it’s much easier to acquire an illegal gun than a legal one, but even in places like NYC in the US it’s hard to get a gun legally (months of paperwork and delay, generally need a lawyer, possible ‘no reason’ denial of permit) yet criminals don’t seem to have a hard time getting them.
Obviously the reason state-by-state registration schemes are ineffective is that guns can be brought from other states.
And if requiring everyone to wear a pink tutu on Wednesdays resulted in a chicken in every pot and peace in the middle east, then the costs and inconvenience would be insignificant - you’ve supported the 1% figure as well as I supported the pink tutu idea (ie not at all). What if the overhead from the registration results in more deaths because of people not being able to defend themselves, or from law enforcement resources being spent on maintaining the gun registry instead of being used on other things, or from police spending time verifying that people are in compliance with registration requirements instead of going out and stopping things that are currently crimes? Without something better than bald assertions, I don’t think any of us can accept your 1% figure.
[QUOTE]
So to answer the OP, how can we enforce the laws and punish criminals if we deny the police the information neccessary to do so?
[QUOTE]
Except that the OP specifically asked if the information you want is neccessary or even useful to the police (I wrote it, so I have some idea what it was asking). How about some numbers from locales with complete registration and licensing requirements like I asked for at the outset?
I’m not sure what you’re talking about there.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Murder already illegal?
Why is it relevant if Victim Q were killed with a gun, as opposed to a knife, baseball bat, car, broken whiskey bottle, chain, chair leg, bare fist, screwdriver, tire-iron, machete, icepick, frying pan, lead pipe, improvised shiv, hammer, pointed stick, axe, or hob-nailed boot?
None of which, with the exception of the car, require the least bit of registration, licensing, or governmental control.
And Minty, you’re a fun guy, but other sources, (for but one) shall we say, don’t share your enthusiasm for what you feel is a ‘success story’.
I wanted to close by making a complex point about how “locking up” guns doesn’t affect only ‘gun crime’, and so forth about positive firearms ownership, but you’d simply dismiss it out of hand anyway.
In the statistical inference race, ottto won this lap and minty’s counter-argument never left the starting gate.
The differences in murder rate between GB and the US has many, many causes. It’s unreasonable to deduce that gun laws made the difference. It would be equally unreasonable to look at the high level of violence in, say, New York City and conclude that it was caused by the ban on guns there.
However, the difference in murder rate before and after confiscating guns is likely to be due to the impact of the gun-confiscation.
. Cite, please. You are wholly incorrect. The most I have done is ask–twice now–why you ignored a preceding post of mine linking and discussing at some length the very issue (the Va. one handgun per month statute) you raised in a subsequent post.
Huh? Cite, link, anything on whatever it is you’re attributing to me in that second sentence? I can’t find anything remotely like it in this thread.
Maryland’s program is probably too new for any meaningful statistics, and of course it only applies to guns that have been sold or transferred post-2000, which is only a tiny percentage of all guns in the state. I see there’s an NRA piece saying no crimes have been solved using the database as of May, 2001–a staggering nine months after the program went into effect. (Jumping the gun much, Mr. Heston?) I have no data on either Chicagor or New York or the specifics of their programs, though I consider gun control on the scale of a single city to be basically useless, since guns can so easily be purchased elsewhere and brought into the city by the bad guys.
“And you know it?” Have some fucking manners, man. There’s no need to attribute malice to your opponent in a debate, you know. Especially since your counter-analogy here is inapposite simply because you’re raising the boogyman of a ban again, despite the fact that the “reasonable gun control” you’re asking about, by definition, does not extend to any such ban. I stand on my early analogy that driving is equally regulated for everyone, even though only some drivers violate those regulations.
No, you’re missing out on a couple points there. I said regulations for “assault weapons” that are “comparable” to the federal regs on machine gun ownership, not “identical.” “Assault weapon,” however it may be defined in the concrete as opposed to the abstract, does not include a semi-auto hunting rifle or pistol. And as has already been pointed in the other thread, it’s only some state laws (primarily CA, IIRC) that require federal dealer licenses to own machine guns.
I already explained. Focusing on legally owned machine guns distracts from all the crimes that have been committed with illegally-held machine guns. The point is that machine guns are disproportionately dangerous, and that it is appropriate to regulate them accordingly.
Which is where you seem determined to take this thing, with your false attribution of malice to me and your bizarro claims that I have said other things that appear in neither of these companion threads. Take a few deep breaths, okay?
Same fallacy. All machine guns are regulated because all machine guns are disproportionately dangerous. The proper inquiry is whether the stricter regulations on machine guns have saved lives by keeping them out of the hands of people who would misuse them, not how many people who were permitted to own them did misuse them.
But of course. Go read about the Valentine’s Day massacre sometime, for one obvious example of a machine gun being used in 1920’s-era Chicago gang warfare. Hell, one of Capone’s top enforcers was nicknamed “Machine Gun” Here’s a nifty littlearticle from 1932-33, stating that tight regulation of Thompson sales has prevented them from falling into the hands of criminals for “nearly two years.” It’s mostly technical, but the regulations are further discussed at the end of the article.
To some extent, yes. I am far less likely to be shot and kille in Britain than in Dallas. I am well aware that any reasonable gun control program needs to account for all costs and benefits attributable to guns, including violent crimes other than murder, nonviolent crimes, deterrent effect, etc. As pointed out to SPOOFE above, I was simply being glib in response to an overly-simplistic analysis.
Frequency of what? Gun crime rates in Britain? It ought to be all over the web.
december:
Private gun ownership has been essentially nonexistant in Britain since long before the rules were further tightened in response to that Scottish school massacre. It seems silly to me to attribute a rise in murder rates to the further restriction of something that had already been regulated pretty much out of existence.
You have perpetuated the myth that New York City has an exceptionally high rate of violence as compared to other cities.
This site Urban Murder Rates says otherwise, at least for 1996.
The NYC rate is 13.4/100000 and it is pretty far down the list in the rate of murder. Gary, IN is tops at 89.6/100000, Washington, DC is 73.1, New Orleans, LA shows 71.9, Richmond, VA 54.7, Atlanta, GA 47.4.
Seattle, WA comes in at a mere 6.9, no doubt owing to the soothing presence of Frasier Crane KACL radio daily.
I don’t think murder rate shows much of anything at all, one way or another, about gun control effectiveness, or the lack of same.
But what is the point of making murder illegal? Laws only affect the law-abiding. Do you think that a murderer will be stopped by the fact that it is illegal?
When murder is outlawed, only outlaws will commit murder! 
It isn’t. Agreed. It’s too late to discuss the point by then. But, if you’ll notice, the discussion from the pro-added-controls side is essentially about prevention of murders. Surely you can’t dismiss that as a reasonable goal? The less available the deadliest weapons are to a person in a rage, or in despondence, the more likely the victim is to survive the experience.
Your turn.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by minty green *
So what you’re saying is that quoting back your own position at you is a ‘bizzaro claim’? I’ve added some qoutes below to show anyone else where you’re simply lying about what you said in the other thread. Since also you don’t even bother supporting any of your assertions with facts, there doesn’t seem to be much point in even attempting reasoned debate with you. I can’t hope to argue on a factual basis (since you don’t provide facts for your assertions), and I can’t even entertain the hope of arguing with your position, since I can expect regurgitating your position to be called a ‘bizarro claim’ (see the bit of your post that I quoted). Given all of that, I’m posting this for other people to see why I won’t be conversing with you anymore, to show that my claims about what you said were anything but ‘bizarro’, and to tell you that from now on I’ll be ignoring you.
FYI, your lack of support for your assertions is shown by the fact that you provide no cites for handgun registries being used for the purposes you claim they’re good for and no cite for automatic weapons being used more commonly by criminals before the NFA than after (mentioning one crime comitted with automatic weapons doesn’t qualify, as I never contested that automatic weapons were used, but rather your claim that they were the weapon of choice), no cite for guns in Virginia being purchased in adjacent states (in the other thread, and a document alleging that they are doesn’t qualify).
In your explanation of ‘common sense gun control’, you said that you would like “Restrictions comparable to those currently in place on fully automatic weapons (a/k/a machine guns) for all weapons that are capable of being converted to full auto.” Anyone can go over to the ‘what is common sense gun control’ thread and see that that’s what you wrote. I pointed out that virtually all semi-automatic weapons are possible to convert to fully automatic, and asked you if you meant all semi-automatic weapons. While you didn’t explicitly say that that is what you meant, you ignored multiple direct questions from me about what you meant, and responded to questions and statements of mine in which I talked about your proposed rule as if it applied to all semi-automatic weapons without challenging that part of it.
For example, I said “(for example, Minty’s apparent desire to ban new semi-automatic weapons).” and you responded (quoting that exact phrase) with “Nope. There’s a gigantic difference between ‘tightly regulated’ (as per federal restrictions on machine guns) and a ban. Any law-abiding citizen can obtain a federal license to own a machine gun, though it is undeniably a pain in the ass to do so.”
Speaking of the Federal license bit, in response to my query “What do you think the ‘general licensing and taxation’ requirements for MGs are?” you said “My recollection is that one must also hold a federal firearms dealer license to own a machine gun. It’s been a while since I looked at the statute. Is my recollection mistaken?”. I then pointed out “requiring that someone run a firearms business in order to own new semi-automatic guns seems a bit beyond the usual use of the phrase.[‘a pain in the ass’]”, to which you responded “Like I said, a major pain in the ass. I have no problem with that.” While you of course didn’t directly state it, the only way to read your phrase is that you would restrict purchase of new semi-automatic weapons to only people operating a firearms business, which I certainly would call a de facto ban and, I believe, any reasonable person would too.
I think that any reasonable person reading the posts you and I made in the other thread can only come to the conclusion that you did not, in fact, talk about restricting assault rifles, but instead talked about restricting all semi-automatic weapons, and that you did talk about placing a de facto ban on them (note that even if you don’t accept those restrictions as a de facto ban, the assault rifle vs semi-automatic part is pretty unambiguous). And on that note, I’ll say goodbye to you.
Isn’t that what people advocate generally? As far as I know, it’s not a felony to fail to register a car in any state in the union. Would you be in favor of requiring a sample of tire tracks from each new car so that police can have a record of what’s basically a ‘vehicle fingerprint’ so that they can match the car to the owner if it’s used in a crime, similar to the ‘ballistic fingerprint’ databases people advocate? (FYI, it’s a valid analogy - while the car’s tread pattern will change over time and will change if the tire is swapped out, the ‘ballistic fingerprint’ of a gun changes from wear on the barrel, and will completely change if the barrel is replaced - something easier to do than changing a tire).
Also, the police and DMV are required to accept registration of a car, required to give out licenses if the person meets the objective qualifications, and required to provide accessible places for people to take driving tests and submit registration. Is this the way proposed gun registration schemes will work, or will they be like the ones in Chicago (handguns are technically legal, but aren’t accepted for registration) or New York (licenses for ownership can be denied at the whim of PD, and are generally hard to get), or perhaps similar to certain procedures for concealed carry licenses in certain states where one must take a certified class - which is held once a year and is always filled by police officers before registration is opened to the public?
If the ‘licensing and registration’ schemes advocated by gun-control types were really analogous to those for cars in practice, pro-gun types would be a lot less opposed to them.
Speaking of Minty Green’s repeated use of “success story” to refer to the federal restriction on machine guns:
Since the regulation of such arms in 1934, no civilians used one in a crime. We had an absolute perfect ownership record of these weapons. Despite this, production of machine guns for civilians was banned in 1986. In the absolute best case, no one used such an arm to commit any crime, the government still banned them.
This is Minty Green’s “success story”.
Reasonable control, indeed.
While they often claim such, they neglect to provide evidence that their proposals will actually reduce the murder rate, and often direct their ‘control’ at weapons infrequently used in murders (such as ‘assault weapons’ or machine guns). Especially damning to the claim that gun control is aimed at reducing the murder rate is the fact that every gun control group that I’m aware of opposes shall-issue concealed carry laws (working to block them, remove them, and to hinder improvements to them) despite the complete lack of evidence of increased danger from such laws (where are all of the ‘OK Corral’ scenarions gun-controlers insist will happen in shall-issue states?) and the strong evidence of reduced crime (including murder) from such laws (for example, Lott’s and Kleck’s work)
The less available the deadliest weapons are to the intended victim of a person in a rage, or in despondence, or looking for a little cash, or looking for a little fun, the more likely the criminal is to inflict the experience.
Also, how is your statement above compatible with the common gun-control position of not wanting to ban guns, just wanting to keep them out of the hands of criminals? Since we don’t know who’s going to fly off the handle, it appears to be an argument for a complete ban, which gun-control proponents are generally quick to state that they don’t want.