Do you support the second amendment?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thephilosopher6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jcrichton said:
Theo, do you truly believe that if there’s no checks on who is able to purchase, legally, a weapon, criminals and those intent on committing crimes with guns would not avail themselves of those weapons… it is irrational to think that those bent on killing would not buy these weapons in larger quantities than are procured illegally. Any study that dismisses this factor is void and null from the first thought/letter.
Click to expand...
Where did your straw man come from? You are the only poster I’ve seen discussing “no checks”

I’ve only seen discussion on registration. We already require background checks before purchase. Nobody here has suggested we should start legally selling firearms to people that are currently legally excluded.
 
Last edited:
Right, because the Congress has never passed an unconstitutional law and the Courts have never wrongly upheld them.
 
The only thing stopping real gun reform in the United States is a paranoid fear that has long been quietly peddled by the gun lobby. Any system of regulation, they maintain, would create lists of gun owners that some future, tyrannical regime would use to seize Americans’ guns and impose a totalitarian state.

That might sound like hyperbole (and it is), but propaganda about a federal government registry or list of gun owners is the chief obstacle to meaningful gun reform in the United States.
 
Jamie5 said:
The only thing stopping real gun reform in the United States is a paranoid fear that has long been quietly peddled by the gun lobby.
Click to expand...
the only thing stopping real gun control is the realization that you aren’t controlling the problem only law abiding citizens. nothing on the books or any current idea would have stopped one killing. nothing on the books or promoted will disarm the criminal.

the one thing that would work is law enforcement but the left is weak on crime and weaker on punishing the criminals. let’s just do feel good stuff.
 
Jamie5 said:
The only thing stopping real gun reform in the United States is a paranoid fear that has long been quietly peddled by the gun lobby. Any system of regulation, they maintain, would create lists of gun owners that some future, tyrannical regime would use to seize Americans’ guns and impose a totalitarian state.

That might sound like hyperbole (and it is), but propaganda about a federal government registry or list of gun owners is the chief obstacle to meaningful gun reform in the United States.
Click to expand...
Registration has already been used as a precursor for confiscation (it’s only real purpose) in the United States, in California in the 1990’s.

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/aug/18/news/mn-1290
 
Read books and articles by John R. Lott who has published a huge amount of legitimate research on this subject.

Major book is “More Guns Less Crime”.

Book blurb:

Does allowing people to own or carry guns deter violent crime? Or does it simply cause more citizens to harm each other? Directly challenging common perceptions about gun control, legal scholar John Lott presents the most rigorously comprehensive data analysis ever done on crime statistics and right-to-carry laws. This timely and provocative work comes to the startling conclusion: more guns mean less crime. In this paperback edition, Lott has expanded the research through 1996, incorporating new data available from states that passed right-to-carry and other gun laws since the book’s publication as well as new city-level statistics.

“Lott’s pro-gun argument has to be examined on the merits, and its chief merit is lots of data. . . . If you still disagree with Lott, at least you will know what will be required to rebut a case that looks pretty near bulletproof.”—Peter Coy, Business Week

“By providing strong empirical evidence that yet another liberal policy is a cause of the very evil it purports to cure, he has permanently changed the terms of debate on gun control. . . . Lott’s book could hardly be more timely. . . . A model of the meticulous application of economics and statistics to law and policy.”—John O. McGinnis, National Review

“His empirical analysis sets a standard that will be difficult to match. . . . This has got to be the most extensive empirical study of crime deterrence that has been done to date.”—Public Choice

“For anyone with an open mind on either side of this subject this book will provide a thorough grounding. It is also likely to be the standard reference on the subject for years to come.”—Stan Liebowitz, Dallas Morning News

“A compelling book with enough hard evidence that even politicians may have to stop and pay attention. More Guns, Less Crime is an exhaustive analysis of the effect of gun possession on crime rates.”—James Bovard, Wall Street Journal

“John Lott documents how far ‘politically correct’ vested interests are willing to go to denigrate anyone who dares disagree with them. Lott has done us all a service by his thorough, thoughtful, scholarly approach to a highly controversial issue.”—Milton Friedman
 
Last edited:
upant said:
you keep saying this but it isn’t true. the funds can be used for research but they can not be used to push gun control. why isn’t this good enough?
Click to expand...
Very simple, people to not want to be fired or brought up on charges of misappropriation if the data supports gun control. Even at the time, there was the consideration that some day the American people would elects some one ignorant of the distinction, and so immersed in his own opinions, that he would persecute people just for disagreeing with him, even on facts, calling any fact that is inconvenient, “fake”.
 
Vonsalza said:
Take another look at the junk chart you provided. The increase in gun ownership is nearly linear. But the drop in homicide drops sharply between 93’ and 00’ and remains fairly static from that point on.

Not only does it fail to provide any evidence of causation, but it also correlates very, very poorly as well
Click to expand...
I was more concerned about the lack of a link, labels as to numbers, or the odd use of 1993.
 
pnewton said:
Very simple, people to not want to be fired or brought up on charges of misappropriation
Click to expand...
nonsense, the deep state is liberal and doing everything it can to keep those liberal policies of the past in place. mr o had 8 years and would have rewarded anything that would have given him gun control.
 
pnewton said:
Criminal prosecution.
Click to expand...
how will a list help in criminal prosecution? if a person is a felon you don’t need a list. if not being on the list isn’t a crime.

the authorities already are able to track the guns back by dealer records (a de facto registration).

if a person is buying a gun for a crime will they be stupid enough to buy it under their own name?
 
upant said:
how will a list help in criminal prosecution? if a person is a felon you don’t need a list. if not being on the list isn’t a crime.

the authorities already are able to track the guns back by dealer records (a de facto registration).
Click to expand...
Records are not computerized and networked. If a woman is killed in a “home invasion”, it would be useful to know if her husband, here co-worker, her lover, her neighbor, etc. owned a weapon of the type that was used to kill her. Except for the specter of gun confiscation by the government (for which evidence does not exist, ironically), why does a gun owner who only uses his gun for self-defense resent this information from being available?

That is what I mean for by criminal prosecution.
 
pnewton said:
for which evidence does not exist, ironically)
Click to expand...
did you read the court conclusion i posted above. it is a fact and would be going on now if it wasn’t stayed. the scary thing is that the state defined magazines as arms. if they get away with this the definition of arms will expand greatly throughout the nation. once arms are allowed to be confiscated the gun is the obvious next item.
 
…'cause feds will come get them in the middle of the night, haven’t you seen what happens in Latin America? ‘the feds, are coming, the feds, are coming!’

Maran atha!

Angel
 
I have to say it is a good chart. Yes, the scales are different as one is per person and the other per 100,000 people. The better question is what this represents. More people with guns? Gun collectors and speculators? So, I suggest looking up the number of households with guns. This has actually gone down with the homicide rate, though again, correlation is not causation. However, it is telling that this conservative think tank picked data to show a reverse correlation, not the one that should a positive correlation, but that is the nature of bloggers and statistics.

I am also noting that the chart only showed the gun homicide rate, not the total rate of death by the use of firearms, which has slightly risen, and includes suicides and accidents.

One final note is that he picked a year that homicides started to decline, after holding steady for a couple of decades. We are just now down to the level of the 1950’s, in total homicide.

Don’t get me wrong. It was a good chart. I just think we need to be clear on its limitations and why he chose to present it the exact way that he did.
 
pnewton said:
I am also noting that the chart only showed the gun homicide rate, not the total rate of death by the use of firearms, which has slightly risen, and includes suicides and accidents.
Click to expand...
Just commenting on this for the moment.

It is an important distinction, for a number of reasons. For this discussion, I think the main reason is banning any class of handgun doesn’t fix suicide. A .22 revolver can be purchased for under $250 and, properly placed, is an effective suicide tool. Ban semi-auto pistols, limit clips and mags, outlaw all semi-autos and higher caliber firearms and a person can still get a .22 revolver with a clean background check.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top