The Obama Gun Effect

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Your source is hardly comprehensive. From the same url you provided:

uh what?

As stated above, the report you're citing as a rebutal to wmbwinn was done under a mandate of examining the financial system. I did a quick search on the word "military" on that site, and I couldn't find it. So this is a very well focused report, which mentions nothing of the military of Germany or it's strategies.

So perhaps you'll concede there were other reasons beyond the banking system?

no, there are 25 seperate studies. you must have not looked very deeply.

were there more than just the financial system? sure, there is the fact that switzerland doesn't really possess any natural resources that would help the german war effort. it also was neutral, so it didn't present any threat to germany.

but its role as a financial conduit was most contributory in its protection.

That is just one of several sources where you can find information on German military matters. Hitler was absolutely concerned with the high number of German casualties, and wmbwinn is absolutely correct in his statement of such.

nope, in fact the crux of the swiss defensive theory was titled "reduit concept", which in essence meant that the swiss army woud rapidly withdraw to the mountains rather than confront and try to stop a german invasion. the swiss army would engage in guerilla tactics from the mountains, launcing small concentrated actions.

iow they wouldn't use this supposed mass numbers of firearms to stop a german assault, hence there would not be a "high number of casualties" suffered by the germans during an invasion.

nice try tho...

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

your response to the direct link between guns and the level of murders in a society seems to be "people kill each other anyway". that isn't borne by the facts, which is in societies with fewer guns there are fewer murders.

your mention of switzerland and hitler is not accurate. germany did not invade switzerland because of the need to use its banking system. it was switzerland's financial staus, not its military ability, that protected it from invasion.

in fact, there are close to twice a many guns per capita in the usa than there is in switzerland. guess what? there is close to twice as many murders per capita in the usa than in switzerland as well.

yes, more guns equate to more murders, more senseless loss of life.

guns need to be regulated, and the scotus opinion says that is legal.

You are re-writing your earlier positions. Earlier, you accurately said that in countries without guns, that there are fewer murders performed with guns. That is a "Oh, Duh" statement but it is accurate.

Now, you are saying that countries with fewer guns have fewer murders.

Let us back up to the over riding idea that we agree on which is that crime and murder happen in the prescence and abscence of firearms. The guns have nothing to do with the underlying crime rate. The guns do increase the lethality of crime.

And, let us review the obvious fact that each country is unique and different. Switzerland has no Dallas, Texas and no Chicago, Illinois, and no LA, California. Switzerland does not have our racial inequality and strife.

Switzerland may have fewer guns per capita but the guns they do have are military issue (fully automatic at this point in history) and the men have military training. I just think you would have to be mentally retarded to start a career in crime in Switzerland.

So, be careful with the conclusions. I try to be careful with my conclusions as well. That is why I listed the research and supportive documents and then admitted some of their shortcomings.

Join me in the field of greater objectivity if you will.

Or just screaming your opinion if it makes you feel good.

[alexamenos]

fwiw...

this page has quite a few pertinent facts. Whether they're reliable or not I don't know but assuming they are reliable....

I looked at assaults per capita, murders per capita, and murders with guns per capita across the spectrum, then narrowed things down to US, UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia because the data was available for these countries (not for india and france) and all five have assaults per 1000 in the 7-8 range.

so...

country, assaults per 1000, murder per 1000, murder by gun per 1000, guns per 100 residents

US 7.6 0.043 0.028 90
UK 7.5 0.014 0.001 ~5
Aus 7.0 0.015 0.003 31
Can 7.1 0.015 0.005 32
NZ 7.5 0.011 0.002 26

The glaringly obvious conclusion is that the difference in murder rates in the US versus the other five countries stems from gun fire -- basically...if 28 person per million are murder from guns during the year in the us and if the us has about 26-30 more murders per million per year then it doesn't take a brain seargant to figure out the problem, right? Thus, by taking guns out of the mix you reduce the murder rate to 15 per million, or 0.015 per thousand in which case the murder rate in the US is comparable to UK, Aus, Can, and NZ....Right?

If we reduce the number of guns down to the number in Can, Aus or NZ, we ought to expect comparable gun related murder rates and we can expect stats to look something like this:

country, assaults per 1000, murder per 1000, murder by gun per 1000, guns per 100 residents

US 7.6 0.019 0.003 30
UK 7.5 0.014 0.001 ~5
Aus 7.0 0.015 0.003 31
Can 7.1 0.015 0.005 32
NZ 7.5 0.011 0.002 26

Right?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

fwiw...

this page has quite a few pertinent facts. Whether they're reliable or not I don't know but assuming they are reliable....

I looked at assaults per capita, murders per capita, and murders with guns per capita across the spectrum, then narrowed things down to US, UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia because the data was available for these countries (not for india and france) and all five have assaults per 1000 in the 7-8 range.

so...

country, assaults per 1000, murder per 1000, murder by gun per 1000, guns per 100 residents

US 7.6 0.043 0.028 90
UK 7.5 0.014 0.001 ~5
Aus 7.0 0.015 0.003 31
Can 7.1 0.015 0.005 32
NZ 7.5 0.011 0.002 26

The glaringly obvious conclusion is that the difference in murder rates in the US versus the other five countries stems from gun fire -- basically...if 28 person per million are murder from guns during the year in the us and if the us has about 26-30 more murders per million per year then it doesn't take a brain seargant to figure out the problem, right? Thus, by taking guns out of the mix you reduce the murder rate to 15 per million, or 0.015 per thousand in which case the murder rate in the US is comparable to UK, Aus, Can, and NZ....Right?

If we reduce the number of guns down to the number in Can, Aus or NZ, we ought to expect comparable gun related murder rates and we can expect stats to look something like this:

country, assaults per 1000, murder per 1000, murder by gun per 1000, guns per 100 residents

US 7.6 0.019 0.003 30
UK 7.5 0.014 0.001 ~5
Aus 7.0 0.015 0.003 31
Can 7.1 0.015 0.005 32
NZ 7.5 0.011 0.002 26

Right?

seems to be valid

[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]

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 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.

[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!)

[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.

[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]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

fwiw...

this page has quite a few pertinent facts. Whether they're reliable or not I don't know but assuming they are reliable....

I looked at assaults per capita, murders per capita, and murders with guns per capita across the spectrum, then narrowed things down to US, UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia because the data was available for these countries (not for india and france) and all five have assaults per 1000 in the 7-8 range.

so...

country, assaults per 1000, murder per 1000, murder by gun per 1000, guns per 100 residents

US 7.6 0.043 0.028 90
UK 7.5 0.014 0.001 ~5
Aus 7.0 0.015 0.003 31
Can 7.1 0.015 0.005 32
NZ 7.5 0.011 0.002 26

The glaringly obvious conclusion is that the difference in murder rates in the US versus the other five countries stems from gun fire -- basically...if 28 person per million are murder from guns during the year in the us and if the us has about 26-30 more murders per million per year then it doesn't take a brain seargant to figure out the problem, right? Thus, by taking guns out of the mix you reduce the murder rate to 15 per million, or 0.015 per thousand in which case the murder rate in the US is comparable to UK, Aus, Can, and NZ....Right?

If we reduce the number of guns down to the number in Can, Aus or NZ, we ought to expect comparable gun related murder rates and we can expect stats to look something like this:

country, assaults per 1000, murder per 1000, murder by gun per 1000, guns per 100 residents

US 7.6 0.019 0.003 30
UK 7.5 0.014 0.001 ~5
Aus 7.0 0.015 0.003 31
Can 7.1 0.015 0.005 32
NZ 7.5 0.011 0.002 26

Right?

I appreciate an analytical mind. But, all you have done is prove the "Oh, Duh" statement of Mavdog: Crime committed with guns is more lethal.

I have never argued contrary to that idea. Yes, Yes, Yes. Guns produce more lethal outcomes when crime is committed with guns.

Still doesn't deal with the issue.

The issues are:
The criminal has a gun. I need a gun to defend myself.

The nation/society needs a militia of armed citizens for its own safety as a state/society (Switzerland as Exhibit A).

Now, we can talk about having a UK style seizure and destruction of weapons (that is what happened there) and a ban on almost all types of guns.

But, that leaves the UK in the same boat as Greece, India, and France: the innocent civilians/citizens cannot defend themselves when all hell breaks loose. Greek citizens can't protect their property against an anarchal riot. The citizens of India suffer 500 deaths and injured persons at the hands of a dozen militants with small arms and grenades and are powerless to defend themselves. And, French citizens could do nothing to defend themselves against the Islamic riots that broke out earlier.

That stuff doesn't happen in Switzerland and Texas because the citizens there would just shoot the idiots themselves...

So, that brings us back to the question. What is the cost/benefit consideration of an armed citizenry?

What is the cost/benefit of the automobile industry (cost is hundreds of thousands of annual deaths)? Shall we just kill the automobile industry since it is about to go bancrupt anyway?

Now, if you want solutions, then here are the ideas I stand behind:
1)as the guns cannot be removed from the hands of the criminally minded anyway and as the US Second Amendment prevents a UK style seizure of guns anyway, then the answer is not in gun control (if gun control is defined as elimination of guns).
2)We continue to seek the ideals of giving guns to the good guys and preventing their possession to the bad guys. But, this is a pipe dream although we all support trying.
3)We do what Rudy Giuliani did in NYC. We
a)increase the punishment
b)assign the punishment in court if guilty
c)prevent the correctional facilities from letting them go early or reducing the penalty.

Rudy's plan worked in NYC. If it works there, then why not expand it across the nation? Do we really have to keep debating ideas when we have good evidence and history about what works?

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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

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]

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.

[wmbwinn]

I never said at any time that the only reason Hitler avoided Switzerland was due to the militia/military of Switzerland.

I never said that the loss of German life calculations were the primary reason that Germany did not sack Switzerland.

I did say that the calculated loss of Germian life was a consideration for Hitler. The Swiss govt article lists 4 things that dissuaded Hitler (which by the way is pure speculation as the Swiss govt does not have any evidence of what Hitler thought or planned). In those 4 listed factors, the military/militia issue is listed.

So, the Swiss govt article supports my position on that issue.

I am not dancing.

you, on the other hand, said that the Swiss govt article listed the banking issue as the primary reason that Hitler left Switzerland alone. That, like many of your statements, was of your authorship and was not found in the quoted article.

Dancing? That is your game.

[wmbwinn]

Statement from the Illinois Rifle Assoc. regarding Obama's anti gun ideology.
Please forward this to as many people as you can. Thank you.


Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson Issues
Open Letter to Nation's Sportsmen Regarding Obama's History in the Illinois
Senate



CHICAGO, Oct 15, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- The following is
the text of an open letter to the nation's hunters and sportsmen issued
by Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson:

Fellow Sportsman,

Hello, my name is Rich Pearson and I have been active in the firearm rights
movement for over 40 years. For the past 15 years, I have served in the
Illinois state capitol as the chief lobbyist for the Illinois State Rifle
Association.

I lobbied Barack Obama extensively while he was an Illinois State Senator. As
a result of that experience, I know Obama's attitudes toward guns and gun
owners better than anyone. The truth be told, in all my years in the Capitol I
have never met a legislator who harbors more contempt for the law-abiding
firearm owner than does Barack Obama.

Although Obama claims to be an advocate for the 2nd Amendment, his voting
record in the Illinois Senate paints a very different picture. While a state
senator, Obama voted for a bill that would ban nearly every hunting rifle, shotgun
and target rifle owned by Illinois citizens.
That same bill would authorize the state police to raid homes of gun owners
to forcibly confiscate banned guns. Obama supported a bill that would shut down
law-abiding firearm manufacturers including Springfield Armory, Armalite,
Rock River Arms and Les Baer. Obama also voted for a bill that would prohibit
law-abiding citizens from purchasing more than one gun per month.

Without a doubt, Barack Obama has proven himself to be an enemy of the law
abiding firearm owner. At the same time, Obama has proven himself to be a friend
to the hardened criminal. While a state senator, Obama voted 4 times against
legislation that would allow a homeowner to use a firearm in defense of home
and family.
Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a "friend" of the law-abiding gun
owner?

And speaking of friends, you can always tell a person by the company they
keep. Obama counts among his friends the Rev. Michael Pfleger - a renegade
Chicago priest who has openly called for the murder of gun shop owners and pro-gun
legislators.

Then there is his buddy Richard Daley, the mayor of Chicago who has declared
that if it were up to him, nobody would be allowed to own a gun. And let's not
forget Obama's pal George Soros - the guy who has pumped millions of dollars
into the UN's international effort to disarm law-abiding citizens.

Obama has shown that he is more than willing to use other people's money to
fund his campaign to take your guns away from you. While a board member of the
leftist Joyce Foundation, Barack Obama wrote checks for tens of millions of
dollars to extremist gun control organizations such as the Illinois Council
Against Handgun Violence and the Violence Policy Center.

Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a "friend" of the law-abiding gun
owner?

By now, I'm sure that many of you have received mailings from an organization
called "American Hunters and Shooters Association(AHSA)" talking about what a
swell fellow Obama is and how he honors the 2nd Amendment and how you will
never have to worry about Obama coming to take your guns. Let me make it
perfectly clear - everything the AHSA says about Obama is pure hogwash.

The AHSA is headed by a group of left-wing elitists who subscribe to the
British view of hunting and shooting. That is, a state of affairs where hunting
and shooting are reserved for the wealthy upper-crust who can afford guided
hunts on exclusive private reserves. The AHSA is not your friend, never will be.

In closing, I'd like to remind you that I'm a guy who has actually gone nose
to nose with Obama on gun rights issues. The Obama I know cannot even begin to
identify with this nation's outdoor traditions. The Obama I know sees you,
the law abiding gun owner, as nothing but a low-class lummox who is easily
swayed by the flash of a smile and a ration of rosy rhetoric. The Obama I know is a
stony-faced liar who has honed his skill at getting what he wants - so long
as people are willing to give it to him.
That's the Barack Obama I know.

The ISRA is the state's leading advocate of safe, lawful and responsible
firearms ownership. Founded in 1903, the ISRA has represented the interests of
millions of law-abiding Illinois firearm owners.

WEB SITE: http://www.isra.org
SOURCE Illinois State Rifle Association
http://www.isra.orgCopyright (C) 2008 PR Newswire. All rights reserved

http://sksparts.com/things_to_consider.htm

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

I never said at any time that the only reason Hitler avoided Switzerland was due to the militia/military of Switzerland.

I never said that the loss of German life calculations were the primary reason that Germany did not sack Switzerland.

I did say that the calculated loss of Germian life was a consideration for Hitler. The Swiss govt article lists 4 things that dissuaded Hitler (which by the way is pure speculation as the Swiss govt does not have any evidence of what Hitler thought or planned). In those 4 listed factors, the military/militia issue is listed.

So, the Swiss govt article supports my position on that issue.

I am not dancing.

you, on the other hand, said that the Swiss govt article listed the banking issue as the primary reason that Hitler left Switzerland alone. That, like many of your statements, was of your authorship and was not found in the quoted article.

Dancing? That is your game.

you're denying it again?

your assertion was that the swiss having so many guns was the reason that hitler never invaded switzerland, to wit:

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

so I provided quotes from the swiss government's own report that discussed the role of the financial system and its importance to germany in why the germans did not invade, the quotes on how a "single tank regiment" of germans could have taken over switzerland, and you even contributed the railway as a reason the germans didn't invade....all of which show that the number of guns possesed by the swiss provided no "protectrion" at all to the swiss.

just admit your assertion was wrong, and we can just move on. stop trying to "rewrite history" as you put it...

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

you're denying it again?

your assertion was that the swiss having so many guns was the reason that hitler never invaded switzerland, to wit:


so I provided quotes from the swiss government's own report that discussed the role of the financial system and its importance to germany in why the germans did not invade, the quotes on how a "single tank regiment" of germans could have taken over switzerland, and you even contributed the railway as a reason the germans didn't invade....all of which show that the number of guns possesed by the swiss provided no "protectrion" at all to the swiss.

just admit your assertion was wrong, and we can just move on. stop trying to "rewrite history" as you put it...

No. my assertion was correct. But, the militia/military issue was only one of four causes of Hilter not hitting Switzerland. Still, the militia/military issue was one of the issues. So, I am not wrong.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

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.

you remind me of sarah palin, who would regurgitate an answer to a question and totally miss what the questioner asked....all those nra sites do a great job of telling it like the nra wants to portray the facts, which is selecting the parameters which best support their more guns for more people position.

here, I'll make it simpler for you: the number of guns in america has increased steadily, with no decrease in the number of guns in any one year, over time.

the crime rate has had periods of increasing rates of crime and decreasing rates of crime over time.

therefore over time there is not direct correlation between the number of guns and the level of crime. the two are independent of each other.

nice try tho.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

you remind me of sarah palin, who would regurgitate an answer to a question and totally miss what the questioner asked....all those nra sites do a great job of telling it like the nra wants to portray the facts, which is selecting the parameters which best support their more guns for more people position.

here, I'll make it simpler for you: the number of guns in america has increased steadily, with no decrease in the number of guns in any one year, over time.

the crime rate has had periods of increasing rates of crime and decreasing rates of crime over time.

therefore over time there is not direct correlation between the number of guns and the level of crime. the two are independent of each other.

nice try tho.

Perfect. I can live with that. But, I can't live with your earlier statements that increased guns equaled increased crime rates or murder rates or even accidental gun deaths.

So, we can agree that guns have not made crime rates, murder rates, or accidental gun deaths worse.

[chumdawg]

His home was burglarized several times in the past, yet no one died. This time, the guy looked out into the dark, saw only shadows and what may have been a crowbar, and decided to unleash a shotgun blast. He immediately knew he was in trouble.

He knew he was in trouble because you can't go around firing off shotguns when you see shadows and maybe a crowbar.

God forbid those were cops in there.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

His home was burglarized several times in the past, yet no one died. This time, the guy looked out into the dark, saw only shadows and what may have been a crowbar, and decided to unleash a shotgun blast. He immediately knew he was in trouble.

He knew he was in trouble because you can't go around firing off shotguns when you see shadows and maybe a crowbar.

God forbid those were cops in there.

Break into my house, and crowbar or not........you are a dead man.

I will defend my family.

[u2sarajevo]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

His home was burglarized several times in the past, yet no one died. This time, the guy looked out into the dark, saw only shadows and what may have been a crowbar, and decided to unleash a shotgun blast. He immediately knew he was in trouble.

He knew he was in trouble because you can't go around firing off shotguns when you see shadows and maybe a crowbar.

God forbid those were cops in there.

He knew he was in trouble because his Country doesn't give him the ability to protect his house.

[Mavdog]

was that story written by mickey spillane? there are so many incorrect, fabricated and twisted statements in that piece.

btw the dunblane inquiry did NOT advocate the removal of all guns, and in fact said just the opposite, that individual ownership of premitted guns SHOULD be continued.
--------------------------------------------------
Tony Martin: Crime and controversy

Farmer Tony Martin became a focus of huge national debate after shooting dead a teenager who was burgling his home. The incident ignited a furore in Britain over issues such as rural crime and the rights to defend property.

Many vigorously supported the then 54-year-old, but others dismissed him as a violent eccentric who chose to act as a vigilante.

The case continues to attract controversy, with the ongoing attempts of Brendon Fearon, an accomplice of the teenage burglar, to sue Martin for injuries sustained during the incident.

The episode began in August 1999 when 16-year-old Fred Barras, and 33-year-old Fearon, broke into Martin's remote, semi-derelict farmhouse in Emneth Hungate, Norfolk.

Martin, who was in the house at the time, opened fire with an illegally-held pump-action shotgun. Barras was shot in the back and died at the scene, while Fearon was shot in the leg and recovered after treatment in hospital.

Three days later, Martin was taken into police custody and charged with murder and wounding with intent.

The case caused an immediate furore, with local supporters protesting outside the remand hearing.

It became apparent that Martin's orchard farm and home, called Bleak House, had been plagued by crime for years.

Gun history

Martin had been burgled so many times that he had set up an elaborate network of look-out ladders and traps, even removing a stair to hinder intruders.

Three months before the shooting, crooks had broken into the house and taken £6,000 worth of furniture.

Martin distrusted the police and was said to have begun fearing for his life. He slept with his clothes and boots on and reportedly kept his gun primed and ready by his bedside.
When his trial began in April 2000 Martin argued that he had genuinely been acting in self-defence.

But it emerged the pair had been shot as they tried to flee through a window.

'Mind of a child'

Jurors also heard that Martin had a history of gun-related misbehaviour, including firing upon a car six years before - an incident which led to his shotgun certificate being revoked.

Norwich Crown Court decided he had gone beyond self-defence, and convicted him of murder - for which he was automatically sentenced to life. The verdict sparked even more argument, with campaigners calling it "monstrous". Martin received thousands of supportive letters in prison.

He began an appeal immediately. In court he argued he had suffered from a paranoid personality disorder which diminished his responsibility.

His barrister told the court Martin had suffered sexual abuse as a child and "considered himself a boy of about ten".

Burglar sues

The court found in Martin's favour and in October 2001 his offence was downgraded to manslaughter and his sentence reduced to five years.

But the controversy did not end there.

Fearon, who had more than 30 criminal convictions, is now trying to sue Martin for damages as a result of being shot.

He has asked for a reported £15,000 for loss of earnings, claiming he can no longer enjoy sex or bear to see shootings on television.

Fearon is himself currently in jail, after being convicted in February of this year on drugs charges and jailed for 18 months.

The case is likely to be heard once both Fearon and Martin have been freed.

Future security

Martin has also continued to make front pages as he has wrestled with the parole board for early release from prison.

He is due for automatic release on 28 July, when he will have served two-thirds of his sentence, but this could have been brought forward to as early as September last year.
The parole board, however, has continually refused him early release - saying he has shown no remorse and would continue to pose a danger to any other burglars.

Martin argues he has made plans to ensure peace and security on his eventual return home.

He has discussed protecting his home with electronic gates and an air raid siren, and has been given a specific police contact to call in case of trouble.

This has not stopped commentators worrying that he will therefore be vulnerable to revenge attacks from Fearon's supporters - who have reportedly put a bounty on his head, worth tens of thousands of pounds.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...lk/3009769.stm

[u2sarajevo]

Why in the world did he kill that kid. He should have let him get away so he could come back some other night and get away with it.

[Underdog]

I would have used my freaky voodoo on the kid to make him grow man-boobs... That outta learn him!

(alternative form of vigilante justice: remember the rape scene from Pulp Fiction?)


...because shooting a man is just TOO easy!

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Underdog

I would have used my freaky voodoo on the kid to make him grow man-boobs... That outta learn him!

(alternative form of vigilante justice: remember the rape scene from Pulp Fiction?)


...because shooting a man is just TOO easy!

I would have tied him up and poured gasoline all over him and then cut his ear off while listening to "stuck in the middle with you." that's justice.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I would have tied him up and poured gasoline all over him and then cut his ear off while listening to "stuck in the middle with you." that's justice.

You, sir, are much kinkier than I...

[u2sarajevo]

What would I have done? Run to the police and ask for a lineup consisting of suspects in the dark brandishing crowbars. I bet I could pick him out.


edit: I bet all he really wanted to do was to change the guys tires.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

What would I have done? Run to the police and ask for a lineup consisting of suspects in the dark brandishing crowbars. I bet I could pick him out.


edit: I bet all he really wanted to do was to change the guys tires.

No - that's just a stupid as shooting the guy...

Seek out the rational middle-ground - learn freaky voodoo!


(you guys are always trying to make things more complicated than they really are...)

[alexamenos]

I would have hit the guy with a compilation of basketballgirl25 posts.

[Mavdog]

^cruel and unusual punishment.

sane people would say "just shoot me!"...