The Obama Gun Effect

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

seems to be valid

it was a specious analysis on my part, which is to say as superficially compelling as it may seem, it is a fundamentally weak position.

there's no reason whatsoever to imagine that a reduction in gun ownership from 90 per 100 to 30 per 100 would come close to reducing gun murders per million from 28 to 3. Why not? Because of the 900,000 guns owned by a million people, only 28 are responsible for those 28 murders. What I've posited in this weak analyis (which you found to be valid) was that a reduction in legal ownership of guns by 66% would result in about a 90% reduction in guns owned by people who were going to commit murders -- that's a ludicrous proposition on it's face. More likely a significant reduction in gun numbers would lower everything but the number of guns owned by people likely to murder someone with a gun.

moreover, this analyis assumes that the number of assaults per 1000 won't go up in the US if we restrict legal ownership of guns by a large margin -- that is a very questionable assumption. if assaults per 1000 rise we're likely to see an increase in the number of gunless murders per 1000, all other things being equal. an effort to protect a few people from being murdered by guns might render potentially thousands of people per million unable to protect themselves from violent assaults -- I don't see that such a tradeoff is inarguably a good thing.

let's also bear in mind that while the number of gun related deaths in the us may be higher than some countries which have few guns, they're also lower than some other countries which have few guns (mexico, for instance...columbia too). that is, one shouldn't simply cherry pick a handful of countries with fewer guns and fewer gun related murders -- we also have to consider the countries with few guns and more gun related murders in order to properly analyze the question.

so, I don't see anything in the stats to suggest that a reduction in the legal ownership of guns would accomplish much other than limit law-abiding citizens' ability to protect themselves...

[chumdawg]

I'm sure Germany had its reasons for not invading Switzerland, but I'm equally sure that fear of Switzerland's mighty militia was not among them.

Still and all, I'm not sure what relevance this has to the issue at hand. We may as well be talking about the American Civil War. Neither has much bearing on the situation in America today.

I still say, wmbwinn, that you seem to have an unusual paranoia about the government. You talk about what shape the innocent man will be in when all hell breaks loose, or when the anarchists sprout wings. As I've tried to suggest to you before...simply go and get, and keep, and bear, or whatever...all the guns you want. As long as you keep them to yourself, and don't go committing crimes with them (or other crimes), no one is going to care what you have locked away in your closet, or how you got them. If the shit really does hit the fan, as you seem to think it will, the laws won't be of much import anyway, now will they?

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I'm sure Germany had its reasons for not invading Switzerland, but I'm equally sure that fear of Switzerland's mighty militia was not among them.

Still and all, I'm not sure what relevance this has to the issue at hand. We may as well be talking about the American Civil War. Neither has much bearing on the situation in America today.

I still say, wmbwinn, that you seem to have an unusual paranoia about the government. You talk about what shape the innocent man will be in when all hell breaks loose, or when the anarchists sprout wings. As I've tried to suggest to you before...simply go and get, and keep, and bear, or whatever...all the guns you want. As long as you keep them to yourself, and don't go committing crimes with them (or other crimes), no one is going to care what you have locked away in your closet, or how you got them. If the shit really does hit the fan, as you seem to think it will, the laws won't be of much import anyway, now will they?

Thank you.

So long as you have no desire to kill the second amendment, I don't care if you think I'm nuts.

Your closing statement is, however, strange.

If all hell does break loose, the issue is can you defend yourself? It will be too late to go get a gun. The guns in the stores and the ammo in the stores will be gone in ten minutes and will not last long in prolonged fighting. Hence the issue of preparedness.

Again, don't care if you think I'm nuts. So long as you are a pascifist regarding the second amendment and my right to have the guns in my closet, then you and I are friends.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

so, I don't see anything in the stats to suggest that a reduction in the legal ownership of guns would accomplish much other than limit law-abiding citizens' ability to protect themselves...

Let me get this straight. You are saying that your evaluation of those stats tells you that the higher gun ownership rate in the US, vis a vis the other countries, results in a lower murder rate in the US, vis a vis the other countries...all else being equal?

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

it was a specious analysis on my part, which is to say as superficially compelling as it may seem, it is a fundamentally weak position.

there's no reason whatsoever to imagine that a reduction in gun ownership from 90 per 100 to 30 per 100 would come close to reducing gun murders per million from 28 to 3. Why not? Because of the 900,000 guns owned by a million people, only 28 are responsible for those 28 murders. What I've posited in this weak analyis (which you found to be valid) was that a reduction in legal ownership of guns by 66% would result in about a 90% reduction in guns owned by people who were going to commit murders -- that's a ludicrous proposition on it's face. More likely a significant reduction in gun numbers would lower everything but the number of guns owned by people likely to murder someone with a gun.

moreover, this analyis assumes that the number of assaults per 1000 won't go up in the US if we restrict legal ownership of guns by a large margin -- that is a very questionable assumption. if assaults per 1000 rise we're likely to see an increase in the number of gunless murders per 1000, all other things being equal. an effort to protect a few people from being murdered by guns might render potentially thousands of people per million unable to protect themselves from violent assaults -- I don't see that such a tradeoff is inarguably a good thing.

let's also bear in mind that while the number of gun related deaths in the us may be higher than some countries which have few guns, they're also lower than some other countries which have few guns (mexico, for instance...columbia too). that is, one shouldn't simply cherry pick a handful of countries with fewer guns and fewer gun related murders -- we also have to consider the countries with few guns and more gun related murders in order to properly analyze the question.

so, I don't see anything in the stats to suggest that a reduction in the legal ownership of guns would accomplish much other than limit law-abiding citizens' ability to protect themselves...

all very well said. And, again, a well thought out response to the "oh, Duh" conclusions that are repeated until I get dizzy with annoyance.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Let me get this straight. You are saying that your evaluation of those stats tells you that the higher gun ownership rate in the US, vis a vis the other countries, results in a lower murder rate in the US, vis a vis the other countries...all else being equal?

I'm sure that Alex can answer this better than I. What I see in his words is that the reduction in arms owned by LEGAL, HONEST citizens won't help matters at all.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Thank you.

So long as you have no desire to kill the second amendment, I don't care if you think I'm nuts.

Your closing statement is, however, strange.

If all hell does break loose, the issue is can you defend yourself? It will be too late to go get a gun. The guns in the stores and the ammo in the stores will be gone in ten minutes and will not last long in prolonged fighting. Hence the issue of preparedness.

Again, don't care if you think I'm nuts. So long as you are a pascifist regarding the second amendment and my right to have the guns in my closet, then you and I are friends.

For whatever reason, you never seem to grasp what I am suggesting here. What I am saying is that I don't see what reason you have to be so concerned with the gun laws. You say that it's all about defending yourself, bring up the example of the Swiss militia and all that. If I felt the same way you seem to feel, here is what I would do.

I would arm myself to the hilt against the attack that I saw coming, and the last thing on my mind would be whether arming myself was legal or not. I'd keep my guns and ammo stored away...wouldn't use it for anything untoward. It would just be there if I needed it. Would it be illegal for me to bear those arms? I couldn't care less. I'm storing them for the day when "all hell breaks loose," as you say, and the laws no longer mean anything. In the meantime, I'm sure that no one will know. After all, the Constitution protects me against unlawful search and seizure.

In other words, why care about "gun laws" when the moment I am holding those guns for is going to be a moment that is very much outside the laws anyway? Be your own militia if you want. There's nothing stopping you. If the bad guys can get guns, you can too.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Let me get this straight. You are saying that your evaluation of those stats tells you that the higher gun ownership rate in the US, vis a vis the other countries, results in a lower murder rate in the US, vis a vis the other countries...all else being equal?

what I'm saying is that making guns illegal will mean that only criminals will have guns. why it is so hard for some to grasp the relevancy of this point is beyond me.

country, gun related homicides per 100k, guns per 100

United States 3.6 * 90
Mexico 3.7 * 15
Thailand 33.0 * 16
Colombia 51.8 * 7.2
South Africa 74.6 * 13.1

US -- more guns, fewer gun murders....

(cherry picking stats is fun and easy!)

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

I'm sure that Alex can answer this better than I. What I see in his words is that the reduction in arms owned by LEGAL, HONEST citizens won't help matters at all.

No, that's not what he is saying. He's certainly not trying to make that argument. He is analyzing the stats he discovered, and those stats don't break out "legal and honest" ownership versus illegal and dishonest.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

what I'm saying is that making guns illegal will mean that only criminals will have guns. why it is so hard for some to grasp the relevancy of this point is beyond me.

country, gun related homicides per 100k, guns per 100

United States 3.6 * 90
Mexico 3.7 * 15
Thailand 33.0 * 16
Colombia 51.8 * 7.2
South Africa 74.6 * 13.1

US -- more guns, fewer gun murders....

(cherry picking stats is fun and easy!)

And rhetorical end-arounds are so funny! If that was your point, why didn't you make it up front?

Probably because you know that the "stats" are pretty close to worthless. Unless, of course, you believe that those gun ownership rates are accurate. Wanna explore that issue?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

what I'm saying is that making guns illegal will mean that only criminals will have guns. why it is so hard for some to grasp the relevancy of this point is beyond me.

I think you need to clarify your definitions. Is it your claim that anyone who owns a gun when gun ownership is illegal is, by definition, a criminal? Or are you saying that no otherwise law-abiding citizens will own a gun if owning a gun is illegal?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I think you need to clarify your definitions. Is it your claim that anyone who owns a gun when gun ownership is illegal is, by definition, a criminal? Or are you saying that no otherwise law-abiding citizens will own a gun if owning a gun is illegal?

The way I see it is the 28 people per million who commit murders are the criminals, and the question I ask is whether these people are likely to be deterred from obtaining a gun in some fashion because the law restricts legal ownership.

Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems to me like someone willing to take the risk of a death penalty or life in prison in order to kill a person isn't likely to be too concerned with the possibility of a stiff fine for gun possession.

And we can debate the quality of stats all we like -- I don't even pretend to stand by the stats I've quoted (and I provided a caveat in this regard in my first post). My position on the matter is much more basic -- we're more likely to rid this country of marijuana than guns. The difference is that if a guy comes at me with a bong in one hand and bag of oreos in the other, I feel like I can take him if I'm stone sober. OTOH, if he comes at me with a 45 and all I've got is a wad of stats that show him how people don't kill people, people with guns kill people.....I'm not so sure about the security of my position.

I can go along with making guns tougher to get -- hell if a guy has to show that he can parallel park in order to drive a car, I don't have a problem with a guy needing to get some sort of license in order to buy a gun.

The problem I have is with the very implausible assumption that criminalizing gun ownership will lead to anything other than more guns (and a greater disparity of power) winding up in the hands of all the wrong people.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems to me like someone willing to take the risk of a death penalty or life in prison in order to kill a person isn't likely to be too concerned with the possibility of a stiff fine for gun possession.

Maybe I'm the crazy one, because it seems to me that the vast majority of those who murder someone with a handgun, particularly if they face the death penalty or life in prison, probably wish to hell they had never owned a gun in the first place.

You seem to be assuming that they actually stop to consider the consequences of their actions. I, on the other hand, tend to assume that they don't.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

For whatever reason, you never seem to grasp what I am suggesting here. What I am saying is that I don't see what reason you have to be so concerned with the gun laws. You say that it's all about defending yourself, bring up the example of the Swiss militia and all that. If I felt the same way you seem to feel, here is what I would do.

I would arm myself to the hilt against the attack that I saw coming, and the last thing on my mind would be whether arming myself was legal or not. I'd keep my guns and ammo stored away...wouldn't use it for anything untoward. It would just be there if I needed it. Would it be illegal for me to bear those arms? I couldn't care less. I'm storing them for the day when "all hell breaks loose," as you say, and the laws no longer mean anything. In the meantime, I'm sure that no one will know. After all, the Constitution protects me against unlawful search and seizure.

In other words, why care about "gun laws" when the moment I am holding those guns for is going to be a moment that is very much outside the laws anyway? Be your own militia if you want. There's nothing stopping you. If the bad guys can get guns, you can too.

Research what happened in the United Kingdom. It may not be possible for the UK model to happen here because of our bill of rights protections against search and seizure and the second amendment. But, in the UK, the government performed the search and seizures and took the guns and destroyed them all.

So, the issue with me is that I can't rest comfortably hoping that it never happens here.

And, I'm not comfortable holding illegal weapons in my house or anywhere else. I'm just not comfortable with that. Hell, I'd lose everything I ever worked for professionally and otherwise if I were convicted of a crime related to the National Firearms Act or the other ATF/FBI laws. And, irregardless of that, I'm still just not comfortable with holding illegal weapons.

That is the problem with gun control laws. They take guns away from honest law abiding persons. Persons with no regard for the law keep the guns.

Not saying you are a criminal. Just saying I'm not comfortable with your proposition.

I'm interested in maintaining the legal right to keep and bear arms.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You seem to be assuming that they actually stop to consider the consequences of their actions. I, on the other hand, tend to assume that they don't.

i'm not assuming anything of the sort, quite the contrary. i'm saying if the possibility of a death sentence won't deter a person from killing someone, how likely is it that the criminal penalties for gun possession will stop that same person from obtaining a gun? none...it is not likely at all. a person who is willing to kill someone won't be deterred from finding a gun, and as I mentioned criminalizing guns will be about as effective in ridding the country as guns as the criminalization of marijuana has been in ridding the country of pot-smoking small forwards.

you're assuming that the ability to kill someone (vis a vis gun ownership) creates the desire to kill someone. that's ludicrous. far more likely, the desire to kill someone leads someone to find the means....necessity is the mother of invention as the saying goes.

[wmbwinn]

by the way, Chum, did you ever read that article I linked you to a second time? Any thoughts on that?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

i'm not assuming anything of the sort, quite the contrary. i'm saying if the possibility of a death sentence won't deter a person from killing someone, how likely is it that the criminal penalties for gun possession will stop that same person from obtaining a gun? none...it is not likely at all. a person who is willing to kill someone won't be deterred from finding a gun, and as I mentioned criminalizing guns will be about as effective in ridding the country as guns as the criminalization of marijuana has been in ridding the country of pot-smoking small forwards.

you're assuming that the ability to kill someone (vis a vis gun ownership) creates the desire to kill someone. that's ludicrous. far more likely, the desire to kill someone leads someone to find the means....necessity is the mother of invention as the saying goes.

Let's leave the weed analogy out of this, because it's nowhere near the same thing. Possession of under two ounces is for all intents and purposes a slap on the wrist. Contrast that with carrying an unlicensed loaded weapon, Plaxico-Burress-style, in New York, which brings you 3.5 years in the big house. Possession under two ounces is not a whole lot different from speeding.

Back on topic...you talk about "a person who is willing to kill someone" not being deterred from finding a gun. I think this critically misunderstands the point. There's a lot of us willing to kill someone, if it comes to it for our own safety or the safety of our loved ones. What you seem to be doing is conflating those who are "looking to" kill someone with those who are "willing to" kill someone. You need to be able to draw that distinction in order to discuss this issue objectively.

Because the truth is that "gun control" laws do every bit as much to protect the person who would pull the trigger as they do to protect the person who would be fired upon. What you have right now is a lot of deaths that would not happen if a firearm were not present, and a lot of very spoiled lives.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Your conclusion does not exist in the quoted article. The author's conclusion is that Hitler did not invade Switzerland because of the Alpine Railway.

The author's words are these:

great, another reason for the germans not to invade switzerland that has NOTHING to do with the swiss having firearms.

nice of you to provide another source that contradicts your prior assertion.

Your statement is just another example of an unfounded opinion of yours not found in the research or documents.

yeh, the link provided to the swiss government's own reports on the matter where my "unfounded opinion" is validated means nothing....

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

by the way, Chum, did you ever read that article I linked you to a second time? Any thoughts on that?

Yeah, I read it. Here's the money quote:

The average gun-wielding criminal studied expected to have no difficulty in obtaining a gun within a day after release from prison.

Make of that what you will. My guess is that you will make of it: "See, they are going to be armed. We have to be armed, too." My take would be: "Why is it so easy for them to get armed?" (There are other parts of the article that explain how easy it is for them to get armed.)

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

it was a specious analysis on my part, which is to say as superficially compelling as it may seem, it is a fundamentally weak position.

there's no reason whatsoever to imagine that a reduction in gun ownership from 90 per 100 to 30 per 100 would come close to reducing gun murders per million from 28 to 3. Why not? Because of the 900,000 guns owned by a million people, only 28 are responsible for those 28 murders. What I've posited in this weak analyis (which you found to be valid) was that a reduction in legal ownership of guns by 66% would result in about a 90% reduction in guns owned by people who were going to commit murders -- that's a ludicrous proposition on it's face. More likely a significant reduction in gun numbers would lower everything but the number of guns owned by people likely to murder someone with a gun.

moreover, this analyis assumes that the number of assaults per 1000 won't go up in the US if we restrict legal ownership of guns by a large margin -- that is a very questionable assumption. if assaults per 1000 rise we're likely to see an increase in the number of gunless murders per 1000, all other things being equal. an effort to protect a few people from being murdered by guns might render potentially thousands of people per million unable to protect themselves from violent assaults -- I don't see that such a tradeoff is inarguably a good thing.

let's also bear in mind that while the number of gun related deaths in the us may be higher than some countries which have few guns, they're also lower than some other countries which have few guns (mexico, for instance...columbia too). that is, one shouldn't simply cherry pick a handful of countries with fewer guns and fewer gun related murders -- we also have to consider the countries with few guns and more gun related murders in order to properly analyze the question.

so, I don't see anything in the stats to suggest that a reduction in the legal ownership of guns would accomplish much other than limit law-abiding citizens' ability to protect themselves...

the "specious" analysis seems similar to when my one year old liked to play with themselves...

the fallacy in your conclusion is simple: it isn't solely a case of murders happening during the commission of a crime, there are many murders that happen when there is no crime at all prior to the taking of a life. likewise there are many lives taken by accidental shootings in which there is no crime at all.

[wmbwinn]

My gosh, Mavdog. Get a clue.

The article you quoted said the PRIMARY reason Hilter did not sack Switzerland was the Alpine Railway.

The article quoted supports both the banking issue and the military issue as other deterrents.

I never said that the military issue was the only deterrent. I don't think I ever said it was the most important deterrent. I just said it was a deterrent and history supports that.

You said that the banking issue was the primary deterrent and you made that up. That idea is not in the quoted information. The quoted information says the most important issue was the railway.

And, if this is all you have left to get upset about, having abandoned all else, then I'm happy with the way this is going.

[wmbwinn]

Quote:
The average gun-wielding criminal studied expected to have no difficulty in obtaining a gun within a day after release from prison.

Chumdawg:

Make of that what you will. My guess is that you will make of it: "See, they are going to be armed. We have to be armed, too." My take would be: "Why is it so easy for them to get armed?" (There are other parts of the article that explain how easy it is for them to get armed.)

It is easy for a criminal to get a gun. There is no way that I know of to change that. Even a UK attempt to seize and destroy and ban would not change that.

There are a lot of ways for a criminal to get a gun despite our best efforts to prevent it. I feel like I have already listed several in various places in this thread and other similar threads in the past.

I don't know that I need to list the ways that I can think of. I'm sure my list would be incomplete anyway.

Problem is that there is no way to change that. We try to change that. But, there are a lot of things we try to improve that never get better.

and, yes, my response is that I want to be armed for defense. And, I'm glad that the SCOTUS supported the second amendment in the way they did.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

and, yes, my response is that I want to be armed for defense. And, I'm glad that the SCOTUS supported the second amendment in the way they did.

So what the hell are we arguing about? The "Obama Gun Effect?" Get 'em now, while you can legally get 'em?

For a guy who likes to talk big about self-defense and militia tactics, you sure come across as weak. "Oh, I would like to have a gun to shoot you, big burglar man, but I'm afraid that is not allowed in my country. Please, take whatever you would like, and kill whoever among us you see fit to kill."

What a puss.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Let's leave the weed analogy out of this, because it's nowhere near the same thing.

let's not leave that analogy out, ok? that analogy shows that criminalizing a thing is not the same thing as removing a thing altogether. you can talk all you like about the efficacy of criminalizing guns, but unless guns are removed altogether from society, then your argument is invalid.

Contrast that with carrying an unlicensed loaded weapon, Plaxico-Burress-style, in New York, which brings you 3.5 years in the big house. Possession under two ounces is not a whole lot different from speeding.

Plaxico did have a gun, did he not? and this is true despite the fact that possession of a gun can get him 3.5 in the big house.

Back on topic...you talk about "a person who is willing to kill someone" not being deterred from finding a gun. I think this critically misunderstands the point. There's a lot of us willing to kill someone, if it comes to it for our own safety or the safety of our loved ones. What you seem to be doing is conflating those who are "looking to" kill someone with those who are "willing to" kill someone. You need to be able to draw that distinction in order to discuss this issue objectively.

I can and do make the distinction -- those "looking to" kill someone are far less likely to be deterred by laws than those "willing to". This is a reality which you implicitly concede when you argue that those willing to committ a murder aren't likely to stop and think about the consequences of the action. What you are arguing is that people who won't be deterred by the possibility of a death sentence would be deterred by the possibility of 3.5 years.

Because the truth is that "gun control" laws do every bit as much to protect the person who would pull the trigger as they do to protect the person who would be fired upon. What you have right now is a lot of deaths that would not happen if a firearm were not present, and a lot of very spoiled lives.

This isn't the truth -- this is the question at hand. Questions aren't answered by begging the question.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

So what the hell are we arguing about? The "Obama Gun Effect?" Get 'em now, while you can legally get 'em?

For a guy who likes to talk big about self-defense and militia tactics, you sure come across as weak. "Oh, I would like to have a gun to shoot you, big burglar man, but I'm afraid that is not allowed in my country. Please, take whatever you would like, and kill whoever among us you see fit to kill."

What a puss.

this is really an unreasonable argument chum -- what wmbwinn has expressed is the desire to be a law-abiding citizen, a perfectly reasonable, responsible and sensible position. you are arguing that a) guns should be outlawed; b) that outlawing guns will prevent criminals from owning guns; and c) that while outlaws will be prevented from owning guns, wmbwinn can have all the illegal guns he wants so he is a pussy because he wants to own them legally.

those things don't add up.

(but i'm probably just failing to think objectively because I can't understand why a guy that wants to be a law-abiding citizen shouldn't be deterred from owning guns while people who want to kill other people will be deterred from owning guns, notwithstanding a mutually agreed upon assumption that consequences do not deter criminals)

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

let's not leave that analogy out, ok? that analogy shows that criminalizing a thing is not the same thing as removing a thing altogether. you can talk all you like about the efficacy of criminalizing guns, but unless guns are removed altogether from society, then your argument is invalid.

We are not discussing the idea of removing guns from society altogether. (I certainly hope we aren't going to get into a discussion of removing weed altogether, since the stuff does happen to grow from God's green earth.) Of course criminalizing a thing is not the same thing as removing it altogether. Who ever made such a ridiculous claim? More to the point, how do you think your weed analogy is at all germane? Speeding is against the law, but of course it happens all the time. It happens all the time because A) the laws are difficult to enforce, and B) the penalties are minor.

I guess you can keep that analogy in your head if you like. But your way of thinking puts shoplifting a candy bar on the same level as taking a life, which I don't see as useful in any way at all.

Plaxico did have a gun, did he not? and this is true despite the fact that possession of a gun can get him 3.5 in the big house.

My guess is that Plaxy didn't know what the law was. My guess is, also, that those who do know what the law is would think twice about carrying that loaded gun around.

I've often thought that there are effective things we could do with the laws in conjuction with something routine like renewing your driver license. I think the state of New York should make driver license candidates write in their hand fifty times: "If I am found carrying an unlicensed loaded handgun, I will spend 3.5 years in the state prison." That should make it hit home.

I can and do make the distinction -- those "looking to" kill someone are far less likely to be deterred by laws than those "willing to". This is a reality which you implicitly concede when you argue that those willing to committ a murder aren't likely to stop and think about the consequences of the action. What you are arguing is that people who won't be deterred by the possibility of a death sentence would be deterred by the possibility of 3.5 years.

No, that is not an argument I am making. I fully appreciate that someone who sets out to murder someone on a specific occasion would not be deterred by the fact that if he happens to be found--not in the course of a crime--carrying a loaded weapon, he will serve time in the state prison. I'm talking about something entirely different. I'm talking about the guy who leaves his house with that loaded weapon, having no set intentions to use it.

[chumdawg]

winn, here's a paragraph from your article. Let's see if we can figure out what this means from a policy standpoint:

If a ban on handguns was enacted, 64% of the criminal respondents said they would shift from a handgun to sawed-off rifles and shotguns. That finding was elicited from three-fourths of "handgun predators" and five eighths of those who had used a handgun more than once in crime. Wright says, "We would do well, by the way, to take this response seriously: most of the predators who said they would substitute the sawed-off shotgun also told us elsewhere in the questionnaire that they had in fact sawed off a shotgun at some time in their lives and that it would be 'very easy' for them to do so again. The possibility that even a few of the men who presently prowl the streets with handguns would, in the face of a handgun ban, prowl with sawed-off shotguns instead is itself good reason to think twice about the advisability of such a ban. That as many as three-quarters of them might do so causes one to tremble." Wright argues, then, that there are "sensible and humane" reasons for opposing a handgun ban.

Okay, they say that if it their handguns were illegal they would use the (presumably legal, else it wouldn't make any sense) sawed-off's.

Does this not strike you as extraordinarily ridiculous? We'll give them the option of an illegal handgun or a legal sawed-off? Geez...who wouldn't take the latter option?

What's missing is the question of what they would do if all those options were illegal. Wright "trembles" at the idea of criminals using sawed-offs when they could be using regular old handguns instead. What the hell kind of policy are these guys trying to figure out?

Seems to me that they are trying to figure out how to encourage the criminals to use the least lethal firearms imaginable.

The article you posted is propaganda--nothing more, nothing less--and not very well done, at that.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

winn, here's a paragraph from your article. Let's see if we can figure out what this means from a policy standpoint:

Okay, they say that if it their handguns were illegal they would use the (presumably legal, else it wouldn't make any sense) sawed-off's.

Does this not strike you as extraordinarily ridiculous? We'll give them the option of an illegal handgun or a legal sawed-off? Geez...who wouldn't take the latter option?

What's missing is the question of what they would do if all those options were illegal. Wright "trembles" at the idea of criminals using sawed-offs when they could be using regular old handguns instead. What the hell kind of policy are these guys trying to figure out?

Seems to me that they are trying to figure out how to encourage the criminals to use the least lethal firearms imaginable.

The article you posted is propaganda--nothing more, nothing less--and not very well done, at that.

A shotgun is illegal if it has a barrel length less than 18 in. or 46 cm and an overall length less than 26 inches. The term "sawed off shotgun" generally applies to an illegal weapon, where the barrel is shorter than 18 inches. So no, I would not presume these criminals were referring to a legal weapon.

I would argue the point is criminals would obtain a shotgun of legal barrel length and take a hack saw to it, it handguns were banned.

And while you mock Write for "trembling" at the thought of criminals using a sawed off instead of a handgun, his point is nonetheless important. If you understand the effective power and devastation realized by a sawed off shotgun, as opposed to a handgun firing a single piece of lead, then you understand his concern.

The point of shortening a shotgun barrel is to minimize the distance required for the pellets inside that shell to spread. With a shortened barrel, maximum damage is acheived by more rapid expansion of the shot group. In small quarters, like someone's house or place of business, a sawed off shotgun is far more devastating than a handgun. That is why it has been said in previous posts/threads that a shotgun is the best home defense weapon.

Write said in the article:

The possibility that even a few of the men who presently prowl the streets with handguns would, in the face of a handgun ban, prowl with sawed-off shotguns instead is itself good reason to think twice about the advisability of such a ban.

The "path of least resistance" is to obtain a shotgun of legal barrel length (not banned), and then modify it yourself. That is far easier than obtaining an illegal (banned) handgun. While you mock it as "trying to encourage criminals to use the least lethal weapon," this is a valid point too. I'm sure you would much rather face an attacker who had a handgun, over one with a sawed off shotgun, because the chances of missing with the handgun are far greater than with the sawed off shotgun.

[chumdawg]

Jefe, while I appreciate your response, I'm afraid you wasted your breath, as it were. The point is that it doesn't make one bit of sense to say that if handguns were illegal for a criminal to use then the criminal would just use a sawed-off instead. As you point out, the sawed-off is illegal as well, and for good reason.

The guy is making the untenable argument that criminals would trade an illegal weapon (handguns, if they were so) for a legal weapan (sawed-off shotgun). The latter is itself not legal.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

My gosh, Mavdog. Get a clue.

The article you quoted said the PRIMARY reason Hilter did not sack Switzerland was the Alpine Railway.

The article quoted supports both the banking issue and the military issue as other deterrents.

I never said that the military issue was the only deterrent. I don't think I ever said it was the most important deterrent. I just said it was a deterrent and history supports that.

You said that the banking issue was the primary deterrent and you made that up. That idea is not in the quoted information. The quoted information says the most important issue was the railway.

this all began when you said

Look at the history of Switzerland. Hitler bypassed that little nation because taking that nation would be horribly expensive in death to Germans....All men take their military weapons home for life

your assertion that the possession of guns by the citizens of switzerland protected that country from attack by hitler has been shown to be wrong. not by my "opinion", but by the swiss government's own report, the swiss strategy of runnimg to the mountains as well as by the link that you yourself provided.

defending the enormous quantity of guns in american society as some sort of deterrence to attack is as thin an argument as it comes. if that premise were true we wouldn't need to be spending all these billions of dolars on our military equipment, and all the billions of dollars on new weapons programs,

And, if this is all you have left to get upset about, having abandoned all else, then I'm happy with the way this is going.

no, the very same points I've made remain valid and not changed or shown to be false. more guns equal more murders, more deaths to people in our society. america is more deadly and more violent with the extremely high amounts of guns available to anybody who wants them.

but that is a "duh" to you and those who want to keep guns being sold like candy to people who want them for whatever reason they choose, which is not only blind to the results but also callous to its affects.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Jefe, while I appreciate your response, I'm afraid you wasted your breath, as it were. The point is that it doesn't make one bit of sense to say that if handguns were illegal for a criminal to use then the criminal would just use a sawed-off instead. As you point out, the sawed-off is illegal as well, and for good reason.

The guy is making the untenable argument that criminals would trade an illegal weapon (handguns, if they were so) for a legal weapan (sawed-off shotgun). The latter is itself not legal.

Where did Wright say the sawed-off shotgun was a legal weapon? That was your assumption, which I corrected. You said, "Okay, they say that if it their handguns were illegal they would use the (presumably legal, else it wouldn't make any sense) sawed-off's."

The point is ease of acquisition. If handguns are banned, they become more difficult to acquire. A shotgun is much easier to acquire, because it would not be banned. The criminal would make the shotgun illegal AFTER he had it, whereas the act of acquiring the handgun would be illegal, and therefore more difficult (but clearly not impossible). I believe I used the phrase "path of least resistance." Why try to acquire a handgun if they are banned and more difficult to acquire, when shotguns are not banned and are quite simple to acquire. That is the point. A ban on handguns would push criminals to use sawed-off shotguns. It has nothing to do with the fact that sawing off a shotgun is illegal too. Criminals don't care about that.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

So what the hell are we arguing about? The "Obama Gun Effect?" Get 'em now, while you can legally get 'em?

For a guy who likes to talk big about self-defense and militia tactics, you sure come across as weak. "Oh, I would like to have a gun to shoot you, big burglar man, but I'm afraid that is not allowed in my country. Please, take whatever you would like, and kill whoever among us you see fit to kill."

What a puss.

Yes, I started the thread to note that guns and ammunition had been selling at 300-500 percent faster since Obama was elected. Yes, we are expecting another ban of some type with Obama in the Big House and a fully supportive Congress waiting to give him whatever he wants.

But, no, I will not own guns illegally. That is why I support the NRA and similar groups who fight to prevent the criminalization of gun ownership.

No, it is not weak to be law abiding. The "puss" is the guy in prison with a boyfriend.

[wmbwinn]

quoted as a block from above:

this all began when you said
Quote:
Look at the history of Switzerland. Hitler bypassed that little nation because taking that nation would be horribly expensive in death to Germans....All men take their military weapons home for life

your assertion that the possession of guns by the citizens of switzerland protected that country from attack by hitler has been shown to be wrong. not by my "opinion", but by the swiss government's own report, the swiss strategy of runnimg to the mountains as well as by the link that you yourself provided.

defending the enormous quantity of guns in american society as some sort of deterrence to attack is as thin an argument as it comes. if that premise were true we wouldn't need to be spending all these billions of dolars on our military equipment, and all the billions of dollars on new weapons programs,

No, you still lack reading comprehension abilities which is interesting since you have said in the past that you want to be a school teacher.

The Swiss government report which we have been quoting says, in summary, that the reasons that Hitler bypassed Switzerland were:

1)"Spiritual", a reference to their fight to the death mentality
2)militia capability combined with mountain footholds
3)banking issues
4)Alpine railway

And, the Swiss report ranks the railway as the number one issue.

The Swiss report does list the anticipated loss of German life (the military issues) as PART of the deterrent.

Stop picking the isolated paragraphs you like and ignoring the body of work.

[wmbwinn]

Mavdog once again repeating herself/himself (gender neutral as I have no clue which is correct):

more guns equal more murders, more deaths to people in our society. america is more deadly and more violent with the extremely high amounts of guns available to anybody who wants them.

but that is a "duh" to you and those who want to keep guns being sold like candy to people who want them for whatever reason they choose, which is not only blind to the results but also callous to its affects.

America has become progressively less violent and less deadly on a parallel course with increased gun ownership. The places in the US that have seen increases in violence and death are the areas with the most restrictive regulations on guns (Chicago, DC, LA, other large CA cities).

But, I don't want to expect you to read the previous articles I provided you that show the reduction in crime paralleling the time period of increased gun ownership. I wouldn't want you to have to admit you are wrong by studying facts.

And, the answer to the issues you are upset about (murder, death by firearm) decreased in NYC because Rudy cracked down on the law enforcement aspect of the equation. He worked with the Congress in his state to increase the penalty for gun related crime. He also worked with the correctional facilities (and the Congress again) to reduce the pattern of reducing penalties.

I am not calloused to crime and crime committed with a firearm.

I just have a brain. The solutions are to do what Rudy did. The idea that we can solve this problem by getting rid of guns is ridiculous.
1)Second amendment prevents the elimination of guns
2)practicality eliminates the possibility of eliminating guns from those who want them illegally (see Chum)
3)Alex is right by comparing it to the criminalization of marijuana. Making it illegal doesn't remove the availability

And, there is nothing wrong with me desiring guns to defend myself. Besides, I enjoy them as a hobby (shooting for accuracy, reloading cartridges, collecting, history, etc.- none of which illicits a sexual response Chum).

[wmbwinn]

Quoted in block:

winn, here's a paragraph from your article. Let's see if we can figure out what this means from a policy standpoint:


Quote:
If a ban on handguns was enacted, 64% of the criminal respondents said they would shift from a handgun to sawed-off rifles and shotguns. That finding was elicited from three-fourths of "handgun predators" and five eighths of those who had used a handgun more than once in crime. Wright says, "We would do well, by the way, to take this response seriously: most of the predators who said they would substitute the sawed-off shotgun also told us elsewhere in the questionnaire that they had in fact sawed off a shotgun at some time in their lives and that it would be 'very easy' for them to do so again. The possibility that even a few of the men who presently prowl the streets with handguns would, in the face of a handgun ban, prowl with sawed-off shotguns instead is itself good reason to think twice about the advisability of such a ban. That as many as three-quarters of them might do so causes one to tremble." Wright argues, then, that there are "sensible and humane" reasons for opposing a handgun ban.

Okay, they say that if it their handguns were illegal they would use the (presumably legal, else it wouldn't make any sense) sawed-off's.

Does this not strike you as extraordinarily ridiculous? We'll give them the option of an illegal handgun or a legal sawed-off? Geez...who wouldn't take the latter option?

What's missing is the question of what they would do if all those options were illegal. Wright "trembles" at the idea of criminals using sawed-offs when they could be using regular old handguns instead. What the hell kind of policy are these guys trying to figure out?

Seems to me that they are trying to figure out how to encourage the criminals to use the least lethal firearms imaginable.

The article you posted is propaganda--nothing more, nothing less--and not very well done, at that.

The ignorance of gun laws among you that are arguing with me is absolutely astounding.

NO, the sawed off shotgun is illegal. Very illegal.

The laws are stupid to a degree but a summary of the rules as I understand them are:

1)A shotgun may not be modified by cutting the barrel unless you apply for and receive a level 3 NFA permit to do so and own such a weapon. Level 3 weapons are registered and obtaining a permit is no easy thing.
2)the legal limit for a short barrelled shotgun (with a pistol grip) is for the barrel to be at least 18 inches long. You can buy a shotgun that was originally made as an 18 inch barrelled weapon with a pistol grip (not a shoulder stock). But, you cannot modify a shotgun legally that was not originally in that configuration even if you modify the shotgun to be exactly like a shotgun on the shelf at the store which is legal.
3)There is a different legal description for shotguns with a shoulder stock.

The only exception to the above is the lowly .410 shotgun. The .410 shotgun can be owned with a shorter barrel with a pistol grip if and only if the barrel is rifled (Not smoothbore like most shotguns). The reason for this little exception is that the pistols made to fire .410 shotgun are made with a .45 caliber barrel and they double as firing not only the 410 shotgun shell but also fire the 45 Colt cartridge (a more typical pistol cartridge).

Anyway, now that I have explained some basic issues to improve your understanding of Wright's article, Wright's issue is that if criminals would buy shotguns and cut them down to get around an abscence of handguns, then:
1)the modification of the shotgun was illegal
2)the shotgun so modified is terribly more effective and destructive than ANY handgun on the planet.

So, Wright is saying to be careful what you wish for.

Now, you can legally go buy a Mossberg/Maverick short barrelled (18 inch) pistol grip shotgun and it is available for under 200 dollars. That weapon is terribly destructive.

The disadvantage (and primary reason that it is not the most commonly used weapon) is that the gun is large and you can't hide it easily.

The Mafia in Chicago used a sawed off shotgun. They created a shoulder strap that hung around their shoulder and suspended the shotgun hanging straight down at their side. They wore a "trench coat" to hide it all. They simply had to lift the shotgun from its hanging position to inflict terrible damage.

But, still, that gun was hard to conceal compared to a handgun.

No, Wright makes perfect sense.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Jefe, while I appreciate your response, I'm afraid you wasted your breath, as it were. The point is that it doesn't make one bit of sense to say that if handguns were illegal for a criminal to use then the criminal would just use a sawed-off instead. As you point out, the sawed-off is illegal as well, and for good reason.

The guy is making the untenable argument that criminals would trade an illegal weapon (handguns, if they were so) for a legal weapan (sawed-off shotgun). The latter is itself not legal.

No, what Wright and Jefelump said is that if handguns were entirely unavailable (which will never happen as it is impossible), then they would buy legal shotguns and then modify them to make them more concealable to use them.

I repeated much of what Jefelump already said. That is what I get for not reading ahead.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Mavdog once again repeating herself/himself (gender neutral as I have no clue which is correct):

America has become progressively less violent and less deadly on a parallel course with increased gun ownership. The places in the US that have seen increases in violence and death are the areas with the most restrictive regulations on guns (Chicago, DC, LA, other large CA cities).

But, I don't want to expect you to read the previous articles I provided you that show the reduction in crime paralleling the time period of increased gun ownership. I wouldn't want you to have to admit you are wrong by studying facts.

interesting that you continue to repeat the mantra that increased gun ownership results in decreased levels of crime, although that is not borne out by statistics. you parse a short timeframe to show this is the case when the longterm stats, stats that show a continual increase in the number of guns but an undulating graph of crime increases and crime decreases over time. there is a clear disconnection between the two.

And, the answer to the issues you are upset about (murder, death by firearm) decreased in NYC because Rudy cracked down on the law enforcement aspect of the equation. He worked with the Congress in his state to increase the penalty for gun related crime. He also worked with the correctional facilities (and the Congress again) to reduce the pattern of reducing penalties.

oh? this is what guilani says:

HANNITY: You inherited those laws, the gun laws in New York?

GIULIANI: Yes, and I used them. I used them to help bring down homicide. We reduced homicide, I think, by 65-70 percent. And some of it was by taking guns out of the streets of New York City.

interview with rudy giuliani

hmmm...."taking guns out of the streets of new york city" was an important tool in reducing the number of homicides.

so you preach the "giuliani way" to gun control. after all you say

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

The solutions are to do what Rudy did.

rudy himself says that he took "guns out of the streets of new york city".

welcome to the correct side of the issue......

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

quoted as a block from above:


No, you still lack reading comprehension abilities which is interesting since you have said in the past that you want to be a school teacher.

The Swiss government report which we have been quoting says, in summary, that the reasons that Hitler bypassed Switzerland were:

1)"Spiritual", a reference to their fight to the death mentality
2)militia capability combined with mountain footholds
3)banking issues
4)Alpine railway

And, the Swiss report ranks the railway as the number one issue.

The Swiss report does list the anticipated loss of German life (the military issues) as PART of the deterrent.

Stop picking the isolated paragraphs you like and ignoring the body of work.

"school teacher"???

wow, you DO just make stuff up.....

it's funny to see you try and cover up your mistake of stating that the possession of guns by the swiss was the reason hitler never invaded switzerland during ww2.

you're like the governor who sang in best little whorehouse in texas, "I love to do the sidestep..."

thanks for the humour.

[Mavdog]

this is too good...more from rudy giuliani, who as we have been told numerous times in this thread is right on the issue of guns...

MAYOR'S MESSAGE

Mayor's WINS Address
Sunday, March 2, 1997

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good morning. It has been a week since the terrible tragedy that happened last Sunday at the Empire State Building. And even as we grieve for the families and our hearts and prayers go out to them, perhaps we can use this senseless tragedy to re-energize the fight for gun control.
A man came to this country from Gaza City on December 24th of last year. Ali Hassan Abu Kamal first arrived in New York and then traveled by plane to Melbourne, Florida, where he checked into a motel.


If this man had wanted to get a driver's license in the state of Florida, he would have had to have gone through some necessary and sensible requirements.

In Florida, you have to take a written test and a driving test to show you understand the rules of safety and the rules of the road. You have to take an eye exam, and your background is checked to see that you don't have a record of being a dangerous driver.

But he didn't want a driver's license, he wanted a gun. And he wanted a gun that could slaughter human beings quickly -- namely, a semi-automatic weapon. And it's much easier to get a license to buy a gun, even a semi-automatic weapon in Florida, than it is to get a driver's license.

All he needed was a registration card that he received by establishing residency at a cheap motel on the same day that he bought the gun. He then bought a .380 Beretta at gun store called The Oaks Trading Post.

This is the same gun store that sold the mass murderer William Cruse a semi-automatic weapon in 1987 that he used to kill six people, including two police officers in Florida.

If Mr. Abu Kamal would have tried to buy a gun in New York, he would not have been able to do so. Because in New York our gun control laws are much stricter and more responsible than in Florida.

To purchase a gun in the State of New York you have to give your full name, your date of birth, your residence, your occupation. You have to prove that you're a United States citizen, you have to show you are of good character, competency and integrity. And you have to demonstrate a real need for the weapon.

And thanks in part to our stricter gun control laws, crime is down dramatically in New York City. Shootings are down over 50 percent. Murder is down over 50 percent. But the fact is that 90 percent of the guns we take out of the hands of criminals in New York City come from out of the State of New York.

We need a federal law that bans all assault weapons, and if in fact you do need a handgun you should be subjected to at least the same restrictions -- and really stronger ones -- that exist for driving an automobile.

The United States Congress needs to pass uniform licensing for everyone carrying a gun. Congress must do more to prevent a tragedy like the one that happened at the Empire State Building from ever happening again.

From Gracie Mansion, this is Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

[wmbwinn]

Quoted in block from above:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wmbwinn
Mavdog once again repeating herself/himself (gender neutral as I have no clue which is correct):

America has become progressively less violent and less deadly on a parallel course with increased gun ownership. The places in the US that have seen increases in violence and death are the areas with the most restrictive regulations on guns (Chicago, DC, LA, other large CA cities).

But, I don't want to expect you to read the previous articles I provided you that show the reduction in crime paralleling the time period of increased gun ownership. I wouldn't want you to have to admit you are wrong by studying facts.

Next part quoted from Mavdog:

interesting that you continue to repeat the mantra that increased gun ownership results in decreased levels of crime, although that is not borne out by statistics. you parse a short timeframe to show this is the case when the longterm stats, stats that show a continual increase in the number of guns but an undulating graph of crime increases and crime decreases over time. there is a clear disconnection between the two.

When I make a statement in statistics, I provide a link. You provide nothing more than your statement. The following link speaks to the reduced crime/murder rate in a time period of increased gun ownership.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...ad.aspx?ID=126

Here is the article again that discusses the lower crime/murder rates in most countries with more free access to guns (this looks at 27 countries):

http://www.nraila.org//Issues/FactSh...ead.aspx?ID=78

Here is the link showing the number of accidental deaths with a firearm have declined despite an increase in the number of guns:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...=242&issue=009

Anyway, Mavdog, you said that the overall trend has been an increase in crime and murder in a time period of increased gun ownership. No link? No data? Is the increase primarily in Washington DC, Chicago, and California's large cities?

Now, as to Rudy: I particularly quoted Rudy in post 131. Go back and read that or look at this link:

http://www.nraila.org//News/Read/Speeches.aspx?ID=45

Rudy very specifically spoke about his issues of gun bans and gun control and specifically backtracked on those issues. He specifically stated that the successes in NYC were due to increased punishment for gun related crime and decreased "passes" in the correctional system.

I bolded many of those areas in post 131.

That is what I'm talking about. I realize that Rudy was on the wrong side of the debate earlier in his career. He flip flopped. I am running with his more recent stance.