Gun Control Laws Don't Work!

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Here is a link and except from the CDC report of firearms deaths in 26 industrialized countries

Now that you have identified where that statistic came from, I can respond. This CDC report has some serious flaws in its comparisons.

The "26 industrialized countries" claim is derived from a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which, with its typical attention to detail on gun-related subjects, incorrectly counted Hong Kong as a country and Kuwait as industrialized. And it excludes industrialized countries like Russia and Brazil.

The anti-gun authors of this "study", made a convenient cherry-picking of selective statistics to suit their purposes - which was to make American's with guns look bad. If you cherry-pick your samples for comparison, you can prove anything you want. This is not honest science.

That aside, a simplistic comparison of firearm-related death numbers of various countries is worthless, since firearm ownership levels, national populations, cultural factors and criminal justice systems vary widely from one to the next.

Of more value, the CDC study found that the difference between the *non-firearm* homicide rates of the U.S. and the countries (and cities) surveyed is almost as great as the difference in firearm-related homicide rates. This offers considerable proof that the U.S. problem is one of a culture of violence generally, not merely one relating to firearms, as I pointed out in my other response.

Want still more evidence of the U.S. cultural disposition towards violence? How about this one:

Contrary to the impression sometimes given in the media, American children are much more likely to be killed by other means than by firearms.

According to a recent government study, "Kids and Guns," published by the Justice Department's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention:

o In other Western countries, the homicide rate for
children age 4 and under is just less than 1 per 100,000.

o But it's quadruple that in the U.S., at 4.1 per 100,000.

o And for every American child 4 or younger killed by a firearm, more than eight others die violently by other means -- blunt objects, strangulation, or most commonly hands, fists or feet.

Thus in 1997, of the 738 children under age 13 who were murdered in the U.S., 133 were killed by guns, according the FBI, and even without gun homicides, the child murder rate in the U.S. is more than 3.5 times as high as in other western countries.

Analysts say the problem is confined mainly to the big cities of the East and West coasts, and to the Southwest.

Source: Statistical Assessment Service, "Juvenile murders: Guns least of it," Christian Science Monitor, March 27, 2000.

Christian Science Monitor

We Americans are a murderous bunch. It's not something to be proud of. But it isn't caused by the mere presence of guns. As long as we run around trying to blame guns for the violence, we will never really address the true cause, our culture, and the carnage will continue...

And since no one likes to admit that there is something wrong with our culture, it likely will continue.

[AdD 1]

Quote

We Americans are a murderous bunch. It's not something to be proud of. But it isn't caused by the mere presence of guns. As long as we run around trying to blame guns for the violence, we will never really address the true cause, our culture, and the carnage will continue...

So given the fact that Americans are a murderous bunch as you so eloquently put it, would it not be in your own best interest to limit the number of firearms with which to indulge in this particular hobby? We seem to have come to a concensus on at least one point, if nothing else. I'm no expert on gun control, and what i've learned this last week about it has been mostly based on my search for mortality rates, but given the facts about how many people are dying from guns in the US, not just relative to other countries but the sheer numbers, is it not reasonable to suggest that perhaps stricter gun control in theory would be a good idea? As I said I'm not an expert, but I don't think it takes one to see that the correlation between being "a murderous bunch" and being armed to the teeth with more guns per capita than you can shake a stick at, will lead to some pretty negative repercussions. As you say, the child murder rate is ridiculously high in the US, but unintentional injuries are also relatively high. Neither of these things is a case against gun control. I don't know how to implement gun control in the USA, if I said I did I'd be a liar. I do think that there are too many handguns there, and that there should be more laws governing the safe storage of firearms and their responsible use, ie training and licensing. Unfortunately a whole different approach is needed to deal with illegal weapons, and I have no answers there. I think my position is that gun control laws aren't working in many cases, but this doesn't mean that it's a bad idea in theory, or that it cannot be put into practice.

Life is ez
On the dz
Every jumper's dream
3 rigs and an airstream

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I do think that there are too many handguns there, and that there should be more laws governing the safe storage of firearms and their responsible use, ie training and licensing

Then again perhaps there are too few and laws mandating their lawful carry by all responsible citizens is in order.

We could always go to the Robert Heinlein School of Manners as taught by Lazurus Long in numerous books. His premise is that an armed society is a POLITE society.

In other words if more of the bad people knew all of the good people were armed with firearms and trained in their use perhaps there would in effect, be far less use after just a few years. Also with KNOWLEDGABLE adults instead of nimrods whose only training is in how to write the check to buy the damn things in the first place, far more children would live in housholds where the adults properly stored and responsibly used and taught their children those lessons.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Here is a link and except from the CDC report of firearms deaths in 26 industrialized countries

Now that you have identified where that statistic came from, I can respond. This CDC report has some serious flaws in its comparisons.

It is TRULY remarkable that all studies disagreeing with your position have serious flaws. Even those form highly reputable sources, such as CDCP, which otherwise does an excellent job in maintaining the public health in the USA.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnischalke 0]

I believe that any agency, which maintains an inanimate metal object is a "disease," is seriously flawed.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[billvon 3,111]

>I believe that any agency, which maintains an inanimate metal
>object is a "disease," is seriously flawed.

Welcome to the decade of hyperbole. Guns, terrorism, chemical weapons - diseases to be cured. We have wars on terror, illiteracy, teen drinking, drugs and cancer. If you claim that anyone who uses such hyperbole is seriously flawed, we're one messed up society.

[mnischalke 0]

Quote

If you claim that anyone who uses such hyperbole is seriously flawed, we're one messed up society.

I do, and we are.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

So given the fact that Americans are a murderous bunch as you so eloquently put it, would it not be in your own best interest to limit the number of firearms with which to indulge in this particular hobby?

Well, that's why gun-control is so popular with so many people - it seems so logical. The problem is, that every study which tries to gauge the effectiveness of such laws, shows that they are ineffective.

Thus, all this energy is spent trying to control guns, to no avail. We would do better to expend that same energy to put more police on the street, or give out longer prison sentences to violent offenders.

Quote

is it not reasonable to suggest that perhaps stricter gun control in theory would be a good idea? As I said I'm not an expert, but I don't think it takes one to see that the correlation between being "a murderous bunch" and being armed to the teeth with more guns per capita than you can shake a stick at, will lead to some pretty negative repercussions.

Yes, that seems like a logical course of action, but it always turns out to be an ineffective course of action.

And that is because gun laws only affect the law-abiding. The criminals will get guns anyway, illegally. Thus, what happens is you still have the same number of armed bad guys, and you have fewer good guys able to defend themselves. This leads to the "law of the jungle", where the criminals prey upon the defenseless citizens. Which means, higher crime rates, rather than lower. It's a case of good intentions gone awry, and producing the opposite results.

Here's a theory to the contrary:

Over the last 12 years or so, numerous states have passed concealed handgun carry laws, allowing ordinary citizens to carry guns for self defense. Something like 38 states now have such laws. If the problem was just the high proportion of guns in society, then these laws should have driven the murder rate *up*. But they haven't. Instead, the murder rate is *down* 42%! That's a dramatic change for the better.

The idea behind concealed carry laws is that the criminals will be unable to predict which contemplated victims of theirs will be able to respond with deadly force against them. Thus, there is a huge deterrence effect. Instead, the criminals turn to property crimes, rather than attacking people, for their booty. This is a positive change. And as the statistics show, it seems to work in every place it is tried.

Thus, we have the book called "More Guns, Less Crime", which explains this seemingly counter-intuitive phenomenon.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

if more of the bad people knew all of the good people were armed with firearms and trained in their use perhaps there would in effect, be far less use after just a few years.

"Crime, Deterrence, and Right-To-Carry Concealed Handguns", by Prof. John Lott, University of Chicago.

Abstract;

"Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992, we find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly. On the other hand, consistent with the notion of criminals responding to incentives, we find criminals substituting into property crimes involving stealth and where the probabilities of contact between the criminal and the victim are
minimal. The largest population counties where the deterrence effect on violent crimes is greatest are where the substitution effect into property crimes is highest. Concealed handguns also have their greatest deterrent effect in the highest crime counties. Higher
arrest and conviction rates consistently and dramatically reduce the crime rate. Consistent with other recent work (Lott, 1992b), the results imply that increasing the arrest rate, independent of the probability of eventual conviction, imposes a significant penalty on criminals. The estimated annual gain from allowing concealed handguns is at least $6.214 billion."

PDF File

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

with KNOWLEDGABLE adults instead of nimrods whose only training is in how to write the check to buy the damn things in the first place, far more children would live in housholds where the adults properly stored and responsibly used and taught their children those lessons.

Instead of mandatory government training of all gun owners, how about a less intrusive version of gun safety education: in our public school systems. We teach our kids safe driving in school, safe sex, what to do in a house fire, bicycle safety, and so on. Yet we say nothing about guns! Perhaps we should have gun safety education at several points during the public eduction cycle, say at the 3rd, 7th, and 10th grade levels. That would ensure that growing kids would know what to do, and what not to do, when they encounter a gun. It would have to be impartial, neither emonizing guns, nor glorifying them. Over time, everyone in society will have had basic gun safety eduction, without all the problems which come about from government mandates, bureaucracy, licensing and/or registration.

Just simply teach kids and young adults about these things, so that they'll grow up knowing the right thing to do.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

if more of the bad people knew all of the good people were armed with firearms and trained in their use perhaps there would in effect, be far less use after just a few years.

"Crime, Deterrence, and Right-To-Carry Concealed Handguns", by Prof. John Lott, University of Chicago.

U. of Chicago directory does not list a John Lott as a professor in any department.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

It is TRULY remarkable that all studies disagreeing with your position have serious flaws. Even those form highly reputable sources, such as CDCP, which otherwise does an excellent job in maintaining the public health in the USA.

There is a lot of junk science out there. And if it's junk, I'm going to call it junk.

There is quite a bit of history with the CDC over their gun studies. They've been spending millions of tax dollars hiring anti-gun researchers to churn out anti-gun studies, for quite some time. Just because someone works for the CDC, doesn't mean they don't have personal beliefs or an agenda that gets in the way of good science. It got so bad during the Clinton years, that Congress forbid them to do it anymore, and ordered them to stick to things like medicine and disease, which is their charter.

I don't see you posting anything in rebuttal...

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

What gun control law will prevent convicted felons from acquiring guns illegally?

I have never understood this.

Laws against running a red light do not stop all people from running a red light. In your logic, we might as well get rid of that law.

Laws against drinking and driving do not stop people from drinking and driving. We might as well allow drinking and driving, obviously those laws aren't working either.

The US war on drugs does not stop drug use. You better stop your war on drugs and legalize all drugs, since it is not working.

The death penalty hasn't stopped people from being murdered. No jail sentence has stopped crimes from being committed.

In the end there will never be a law that will completely stop criminals from acquiring guns illegally. It is impossible by definition.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

It is TRULY remarkable that all studies disagreeing with your position have serious flaws. Even those form highly reputable sources, such as CDCP, which otherwise does an excellent job in maintaining the public health in the USA.

There is a lot of junk science out there. And if it's junk, I'm going to call it junk.

There is quite a bit of history with the CDC over their gun studies. They've been spending millions of tax dollars hiring anti-gun researchers to churn out anti-gun studies, for quite some time. Just because someone works for the CDC, doesn't mean they don't have personal beliefs or an agenda that doesn't get in the way of good science. It got so bad during the Clinton years, that Congress forbid them to do it anymore, and ordered them to stick to things like medicine and disease, which is their charter.

I don't see you posting anything in rebuttal...

Einstein didn't believe God plays dice with the universe, but it didn't stop him doing good science on quantum mechanics. That is a bogus argument. The action of Congress was politically motivated, not scientifically motivated.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

What gun control law will prevent convicted felons from acquiring guns illegally?

I have never understood this.

Laws against running a red light do not stop all people from running a red light. In your logic, we might as well get rid of that law.

Laws against drinking and driving do not stop people from drinking and driving. We might as well allow drinking and driving, obviously those laws aren't working either.

The US war on drugs does not stop drug use. You better stop your war on drugs and legalize all drugs, since it is not working.

The death penalty hasn't stopped people from being murdered. No jail sentence has stopped crimes from being committed.

In the end there will never be a law that will completely stop criminals from acquiring guns illegally. It is impossible by definition.

You are right, it doesn't stop all people. It stops law abiding people. But why do we need to keep guns out of the hands of law abiding people? Those that choose to break the laws any way are the ones that I'm worried about, and passing more laws, won't change the fact that they ignore them...get it?

[rehmwa 2]

And by your reasoning, we could also extrapolate.

If some commits murder with a candlestick, then we ought to take away everyone's right to a romantically lit dinner.

Edit: By the way, a candlelit dinner 'isn't' specifically listed as a citizen's right

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

U. of Chicago directory does not list a John Lott as a professor in any department.

I don't know what his current status is with that school, but he has been a professor in the past.

See: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/Lawecon/ and click on "Working Papers". You'll see a lot of studies he has authored for this school.

You can also go to the U. of Chicago Press at: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/search.html and search for "Lott" as the author.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What gun control law will prevent convicted felons from acquiring guns illegally?

I have never understood this.

Laws against running a red light do not stop all people from running a red light. In your logic, we might as well get rid of that law.

Laws against drinking and driving do not stop people from drinking and driving. We might as well allow drinking and driving, obviously those laws aren't working either.

The US war on drugs does not stop drug use. You better stop your war on drugs and legalize all drugs, since it is not working.

The death penalty hasn't stopped people from being murdered. No jail sentence has stopped crimes from being committed.

In the end there will never be a law that will completely stop criminals from acquiring guns illegally. It is impossible by definition.

You are right, it doesn't stop all people. It stops law abiding people. But why do we need to keep guns out of the hands of law abiding people? Those that choose to break the laws any way are the ones that I'm worried about, and passing more laws, won't change the fact that they ignore them...get it?

I think you are the one that doesn't get it. Why do we need to have anti drunk driving laws when responsible people don't drive drunk, and irresponsible people won't obey them anyway?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[AdD 1]

Quote

Here's a theory to the contrary:

Over the last 12 years or so, numerous states have passed concealed handgun carry laws, allowing ordinary citizens to carry guns for self defense. Something like 38 states now have such laws. If the problem was just the high proportion of guns in society, then these laws should have driven the murder rate *up*. But they haven't. Instead, the murder rate is *down* 42%! That's a dramatic change for the better

And you seem very willing to attribute it in full to the concealed weapons permits, but leaving that aside I actually agree in this point. The concealed weapons permits are relatively hard to come by, requiring more background checks and I presume more training. Since a criminal is unlikely to be helped by such a permit, and a crime of passion is only moderately more likely due to the fact that the person in question is carrying a lethal weapon, I think it could have a positive effect. Since the criminals are 'strapped', it only makes sense that the playing field be levelled for all those Chuck Norris fans who have fantasies about stopping a bank robbery or something of that nature. And of course the statistics that you use must be in no way biased or flawed like the ones I pointed out. Damn that liberal CDC overstepping their mandate to study mortality rates of all kinds. Leaving that aside though, I'd much rather not have my weapon concealed. What good will that do? Why not wear them on your hips so the bad guys know not to fuck with you. I think that would be pretty fun actually. Imagine, the Hugo Boss holster, color coordinated with your favorite business suit. Oh wait, this is sounding an awful lot like the wild west isn't it. National crime rates have been declining yes, but there are more factors involved than just the proliferation of concealed weapons. And for that matter, why not just buy a taser gun for 400 bucks?
http://www.taser.com/pages/products/citizendefense.html

Life is ez
On the dz
Every jumper's dream
3 rigs and an airstream

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I think you are the one that doesn't get it. Why do we need to have anti drunk driving laws when responsible people don't drive drunk, and irresponsible people won't obey them anyway?

Because you're comparing apples and oranges.

Drunk driving is irresponsible behavior.

Owning a gun in not inherently irresponsible.

Using a gun in an irresponsible or criminal manner should be outlawed, just like drunk driving is outlawed.

Outlawing guns themselves or the ability to own them is akin to outlawing cars or the ability to drive them.

In other words, it's not illegal to own a car and drive it, but it is to do so when drunk. Therefore, it shouldn't be illegal to own a gun or use it, as long as it's done responsibly.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

You are right, it doesn't stop all people. It stops law abiding people.

No it doesn't. There are scores and scores of stories of fine upstanding citizens who get caught breaking a law at some point in their life. I am sure that pretty much all of us have run a red light in our past. Or have driven with m aybe a touch more alcohol in our blood than was premitted. Or maybe have driven a touch faster than the speed limit.

So, now you are no longer a law abiding citizen. Laws don't stop law abiding citizens from doing something, it just defines who the law abiding and non law abiding people are.

Laws are used to create an "accepted" behavioural pattern. There will always be those that chose not to follow that pattern. That however is in no way a valid argument for not having laws.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Because you're comparing apples and oranges.

No, it is not. The argument is that gun laws are useless because non law abiding citizens wont abide by them.

The fact of the matter is, that specific argument can be used on every law in the book.

Clearly there have to be laws to keep guns away from certain people? Yet, as you can see from your various wars on drugs, illiteracy etc, not all laws and efforts irradicate all problems.

Just because people break the law, that does not mean there should be no laws to begin with.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I think you are the one that doesn't get it. Why do we need to have anti drunk driving laws when responsible people don't drive drunk, and irresponsible people won't obey them anyway?

Bad analogy - in this analogy, guns aren't 'driving drunk', guns are more like the 'car' or the 'liquor'. Neither of which is illegal, it the misuse or abuse of the legal thing that is illegal. Your analogy would have us make cars illegal.

Edit: oops, Kevin already got it, I do need to hit refresh before responding. My point is that it's not the thing that should be illegal, it should be the action of the individual that should be judged.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Bad analogy - in this analogy, guns aren't 'driving drunk', guns are more like the 'car' or the 'liquor'. Neither of which is illegal, it the misuse or abuse of the legal thing that is illegal. Your analogy would have us make cars illegal.

So, fine, let's treat guns just as we treat cars and liquor. You cannot play with them until you are of a certain age. For a car that is 16 for liquor it is 21. Guns are far more serious then alcohol in my mind, so guns should be illegal for anyone at least under the age of 21.

Towns and counties have the right to be "dry". They should be allowed to do the same with guns.

You need a license to own a gun and you have to prove competency to own it. Every gun, just like every car, will have to be registered by their owners.

And I could go on and on and on. I would be in great favour of treating guns just like cars and liquor.
edited for spelling

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Just because people break the law, that does not mean there should be no laws to begin with.

Didn't say there should be no gun laws. But there shouldn't be laws against non-felon, sane, adults from owning a particular model of firearm or having a certain ammunition capacity. The laws should be regarding the commision of a crime against others, not the posession of an object that has the potential to be used in a crime.