The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Donal's picture

    Firearms = Freedom, Discuss

    By Donal on Sun, 09/05/2010 - 4:44pm |

    I know just enough about guns to be dangerous, and since it is practically illegal for an ordinary person to keep a firearm in Baltimore, it will probably stay that way for a while. But when Robert Farago sold The Truth About Cars, where I used to contribute, and started up The Truth About Guns, I took the opportunity to read and write some articles. I learned that .38 does not equal .380, that 1911 is not just a year and that silencers aren't silent.

    I also learned that pro- and anti-gun lobbyists often make their cases as if there is no middle ground. You either love guns, or hate them. There are certainly a lot of posted articles that express extreme views one way and the other, but if you read comments from readers, you find a lot of folk who, like me, find owning guns for hunting and home defense to be perfectly reasonable, but worry that the current campaign towards open or concealed carry may lead to more problems than it solves.

    Why own a gun? Some pro-gun folks cite the Second Amendment, and some cite Natural Law. Many were heartened by the recent SCOTUS McDonald vs Chicago decision, even though it represents further incorporation of federal laws over state and local laws per the 14th Amendment. Abigail Kohn, anthropologist and author of Shooters, believed that owning guns represents freedom to the gun enthusiasts she interviewed for her book.

    So in one post I asked a straightforward question, "In what practical way does owning a gun ensure one’s freedom?" I got one response, claiming that without guns, the government wouldn't be afraid of the people - which given the government's relative firepower, I found unconvincing.

    But on July 4th, at Daily Kos, Angry Mouse knew exactly why she supported the 2nd Amendment.

    Why liberals should love the Second Amendment

    Liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies. They can talk about the intentions of the Founders. They can argue at length against the tyranny of the government. And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties.

    Except for one: the right to keep and bear arms.

    When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check rational thought at the door. They dismiss approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns, and those who fight to protect the Second Amendment, as “gun nuts.” They argue for greater restrictions. And they pursue these policies at the risk of alienating voters who might otherwise vote for Democrats.

    And they do so in a way that is wholly inconsistent with their approach to all of our other civil liberties.

    Those who fight against Second Amendment rights cite statistics about gun violence, as if such numbers are evidence enough that our rights should be restricted. But Chicago and Washington DC, the two cities from which came the most recent Supreme Court decisions on Second Amendment rights, had some of the most restrictive laws in the nation, and also some of the highest rates of violent crime. Clearly, such restrictions do not correlate with preventing crime.

    So rather than continuing to fight for greater restrictions on Second Amendment rights, it is time for liberals to defend Second Amendment rights as vigorously as they fight to protect all of our other rights. Because it is by fighting to protect each right that we protect all rights.

    And this is why:
    ...

    The Second Amendment is about revolution.

    In no other country, at no other time, has such a right existed. It is not the right to hunt. It is not the right to shoot at soda cans in an empty field. It is not even the right to shoot at a home invader in the middle of the night.

    It is the right of revolution.

    Let me say that again:  It is the right of revolution.

    ...

    What is the point? Is this a rallying cry for liberals to rush right out and purchase a gun? Absolutely not. Guns are dangerous when used by people who are not trained to use them, just as cars are dangerous when driven by people who have not been taught how to drive.

    No, this is a rallying cry for the Bill of Rights -- for all of our rights.

    This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "I just don't like guns."

    This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "No one needs that much ammunition."

    This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "That's not what the Founders meant."

    This is an appeal to every liberal who supports the ACLU.

    This is an appeal to every liberal who has complained about the Bush Administration's trading of our civil liberties for the illusion of greater security. (I believe I’ve seen a T-shirt or two about Benjamin Franklin’s thoughts on that.)

    This is an appeal to every liberal who believes in fighting against the abuses of government, against the infringement of our civil liberties, and for the greater expansion of our rights.

    This is an appeal to every liberal who never wants to lose another election to Republicans because they have successfully persuaded the voters that Democrats will not protect their Second Amendment rights.

    This is an appeal to liberals, not merely to tolerate the Second Amendment, but to embrace it. To love it and defend it and guard it as carefully as you do all the others.

    Because we are liberals. And fighting for our rights -- for all of our rights, for all people -- is what we do.

    Because we are revolutionaries.

     

    This is a provocative line of argument, to say the least, and I believe it is the unspoken but implicit argument of all those, "my cold dead hands" types. But given the government's apparent complicity in the transfer of wealth to the elites, is it such a bad argument?

    Comments

    But given the government's apparent complicity in the transfer of wealth to the elites, is it such a bad argument?

    Not at all. I personaly do not like guns and would probably never own one. But I do agree with that interpretation of the 2nd admentment.


    by cmaukonen on Sun, 09/05/2010 - 6:02pm

    It's probably worth noting that in 1946, Chiang Kai-Shek and the KMT had the best army on the East Asian mainland.

    Three years later, they were on Taiwan, battered, beaten, and looking across the strait at Mao's victorious revolution, because the people were not on their side.

    Thing is, revolutions are arduous, and often destructive - as China now certainly knows, though they have finally emerged into something resembling modern development, however uneven, after the long nightmarish years of Mao's crowd going farther and farther off the rails.  People I know suffered during the Cultural Revolution years, coming as they did from educated families.

    Revolution sometimes also begets civil war, and likely would in the US.  There are vastly disparate regional interests that would not today join together to make a nation, including many who still chafe at the results of 1865.  The fact that since then, they have come to wield a disproportionate amount of power nationally - the old Confederacy still clinging to its supposed victim status, for example, notwithstanding.

    Evolution is always desirable over revolution, halting, inconsistent, and complex though it may be.  This ought to be any thinking or reasonable person's choice.

    And I do appreciate a well-made weapon, of any type, from a fine firearm to a well-balanced, sharp tanto.  The best are art and engineering triumphs to equal any product of craftsmanship.

    I don't, though, relish the prospect of shooting anyone.  The results of that are too often irrevocable for my liking, which is why I don't own any firearms.

    The asymmetry doesn't bother me quite so much as it might.  There are ways around that, horrifying though they may be, as we've seen demonstrated worldwide.  Mere technological or firepower superiority is no longer enough.  Just ask the Russians who were chased from Afghanistan, the IDF after their Lebanon adventurism, or the numerous other would-be occupiers who know that ingenuity and determination are very powerful weapons indeed in their own right.

    Provocative thoughts, though.  And maybe those of us on the left want to give a thought or two to the idea that we may need to defend against our countrymen rather than our government.  Some on the right seem to be giving up on the idea of the electoral process, and those responbsible for our internal security seem rather feckless in their approach to such things, unlike when the perceived rumblings are from the left.

    Here's hoping none of those things come to pass.  I just think the bets I'd place either way are far smaller today than a few years ago.

    Thus endeth the ramble...


    by Austin Train on Sun, 09/05/2010 - 6:56pm

    From what I remember reading about the history of the Colonies prior to independence, the Brits were in the process of confiscating weapons from the public. It was in full practice in Europe as well. The last thing any monarch needed was a populace armed with guns angry over the price for a loaf of bread. So the 2nd Amendment is based more on being in opposition to the monarchical laws of its days. I think of it as a thumbing their nose at King George. Too bad all the documents from the Congresses than met to write the Bill of Rights are too vague on their intent.


    by Beetlejuice on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 5:37am

    They were certainly confiscating from the rebellious Scots.


    by Donal on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 9:57am

    Probably no one reading this has ever heard the 2nd Amendment referred to as a condom before. By nature, it is prophylactic.

    It is designed to ward off any ideas on the federal government part, or any individual who thinks he's bigger than the government, about taking away the balance of freedoms that the Constitution acknowledges belong to the people.

    Those who say that the 2nd is "outdated" because we've never needed it are no different from the people who have sex with prostitutes 100 times and then complain that they wasted all that money on rubbers for protection because they never got a STD anyway. Obviously the condoms were not actually needed.

    I'd say that the 2nd had done a remarkable job in the past, and it is certainly needed in the future. And I'll leave with a quote from our Declaration of Independence... and  trust you to debate whether or not the sentiment is "outdated."

    " That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."


    by jack burton (not verified) on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 11:21am

    " I got one response, claiming that without guns, the government wouldn't be afraid of the people - which given the government's relative firepower, I found unconvincing."

    The "government" has no "firepower." What is has is people who have access to firepower. The real, and only, question is how many of those people will remember that they are Americans fighting for freedom, and how many of them will believe they are servants fighting for a government.

    And if you're an Air Force pilot on his way to bomb a "rebellious U.S. city" what are the odds your plane will even make it to the city when your chief mechanic has a grandmother living there?


    by jack burton (not verified) on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 11:27am

    But rebellions don't usually start with entire cities.

    Consider the bombing of a residential neighborhood in Philadelphia. The Move group took 10,000 rounds, but had no answer to four pounds of C-4 dropped from a helicopter. No one stopped because there were women and children inside.

    Consider the shootout at Waco. The Branch Davidians had enough guns to hold off the ATF for a while, but had no answer for an armored vehicle and tear gas. No one stopped because there were women and children inside.

    The government and MSM have already divided us into groups. No one will care about the grandmother if she belongs to another group.


    by Donal on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 2:43pm

    Trust me... the grandkid will... or don't you care about your own granny? Shame on you.

    The government has had their free passes... there won't be very many more coming their way. And unless you have extensively studied the concept of armed insurecttion you might want to be a little more cautious and humble about assuming what happens under what circumstances.


    by Jack Burton (not verified) on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 7:52pm

    I don't have to assume. I read the news.


    by Donal on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 9:05pm

    Ahhh yes... the newspaper is just chock full of stories from journalists who understand the concept of armed rebellion. Why, just the other day I read a newspaper review of a new model of Chevy coming out and I understood immediately the strategy of NASCAR racers.


    by jack burton (not verified) on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 10:24pm

    ...worry that the current campaign towards open or concealed carry may lead to more problems than it solves."

     

    This disingenuous statement is typical of those who refuse to acknowledge the facts.

    It is no longer intellectually honest for those who specialize in wishy-washyness to falsify what will happen -- and it is the duty of responsible journalists to report what has happened.

    Thirty years after Florida passed the first CCW law there are now almost six million citizens legally carrying handguns in 40 plus states. There have been no school or church shootings by any person with a CCW, no "blood on the streets", no "Dodge City shootouts", no instances of the guns being taken away and used by the badguys, no rise in accident levels, no prisons full of untrained CCW holders who shot otherwise innocent people willy-nilly, and no examples of children shot dead by CCW holders.

    When asked about Texans carrying concealed weapons Glenn White, president of the Dallas Police Association, told the Dallas Morning News, “All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn’t happen . . .I think it’s worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I’m a convert.”

    The reality is that tens of thousands of cases of average citizens have been able to protect themselves and their families from savage barbarians who prey on the apparent weak and innocent. And that is a good thing.


    by jack burton (not verified) on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 11:34am

    My statement is not disingenuous. I see how poorly a lot of people handle the responsibility of driving automobiles, hence I am hardly sanguine about every Tom, Dick and Harriet carrying concealed weapons, too.

    Even police officers have lost it. We recently had an off-duty Baltimore officer empty his Glock into an unarmed man who grabbed his wife's ass. An off-duty federal guard shot a Husky that was playing with his Shepherd - in a dog park in a residential neighborhood. One officer drew his gun in a rage over a traffic incident. Another officer shot a man in the back after a traffic confrontation. And these cyclists were threatened or shot by average citizens.


    by Donal on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 1:22pm

    You can't design law based upon the exceptions; that is illogical and a non sequitur.

    As well, you can't use prior restraint to injure the rights of peaceable citizens, because a miniscule percentage may abuse those rights.

    As always, you "middle of the road" types completely miss the point: Liberty isn't up for negotiation. Laws punishing malum in se crimes, yes. Manufacturing "crimes" by making otherwise lawful behavior unlawful, NO.

    Wake up.


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 4:00pm

    The only non-sequitur is your assumption that I propose making CCW illegal. In fact I prefer that it be thoroughly regulated so CCW carriers understand their responsibilities. (I do find open carry tactically stupid, however). But I do think the current campaign to scare people into CCW is driven more to increase sales than by real necessity. Unless you live in a really awful neighborhood, the chances that you are going to need that concealed weapon are remote. And why live your life based on the exceptions?

    BTW, prior restraint refers to censorship, not regulation.


    by Donal on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 4:57pm

    "Anonymous" seems to prefer the company of strawmen.


    by Austin Train on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 5:41pm

    There is however no evidence that "open carry" is tactically inferior -- it is precisely the same, tired argument long used against concealed carry and even against owning firearms at all, which have long been discredited as being without evidence. No gun control laws have been shown to work. Not one. None of the CDC, the National Academy of Sciences, nor the US Department of Justice, were able to find that ANY gun control reduces VIOLENT CRIME, SUICIDE or ACCIDENTS in any significant manner. Since gun control laws don't work, limiting a right is totally without merit and there is in fact no "middle ground" on such egregious abuse of civil and human rights. How about a middle ground on your right free speech or your right to freedom of (and from) religions?

    by HerbM (not verified) on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 6:53pm

    How about the number of cops that are killed with their own weapons? I've been told one of the fun things prison inmates do to pass the time is instruct each other and practice how to disarm a cop. Which would apply to anyone openly carrying a hog leg in a holster. Why make yourself a target?

    Martin Albright offers a cogent series of arguments against OC at TTAG, one of which is that you give up the main advantage of a small weapon, it's concealability, when you wear it out in the open.


    by Donal on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 7:15pm

    "How about the number of cops that are killed with their own weapons?"

    Citizens as a rule do not...

    Have a fraction of the contact with criminals that cops do.

    Try to arrest criminals

    Attempt to handcuff criminals

    Interrogate criminals

    Transport criminals

    When they begin to do all these things then you can compare cops and citizens and who gets killed with what gun.

     

    "Martin Albright offers a cogent series of arguments against OC"

    Yes....there are many good arguments to be made against OC. There are many good arguments to be made for it. I prefer the concept of freedom of choice. How radical can that be?

     


    by Jack Burton (not verified) on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 8:09pm

    I'm not stopping you from choosing unwisely.


    by Donal on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 9:06pm

    Wasn't the point... the point that YOU tried to make was that people who carry openly are going to cause problems. There is no history that backs up your point, and the history that does exist shows that you are wrong.


    by jack burton (not verified) on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 10:26pm

    "In fact I prefer that it be thoroughly regulated so CCW carriers understand their responsibilities."

    And in states where it is not so highly regulated you find the same exact number of bad things happening -- virtually zero -- as the highly regulated states. YOu are suggesting a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

    "But I do think the current campaign to scare people into CCW is driven more to increase sales than by real necessity."

    I've been in the CCW community for decades and I have never seen any "scare campaign." That is totally made up from thin air.

    ". Unless you live in a really awful neighborhood, the chances that you are going to need that concealed weapon are remote. And why live your life based on the exceptions?"

    It's not the odds... it is the value of what you are protecting. And I like your idea that we do not need auto insurance, seat belts, door locks, fire extinguishers and other miscellaneous protection since it's only the "exceptional" time that that we would need them.

     


    by Jack Burton (not verified) on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 8:03pm

    When all else fails you resort to the straw man.


    by Donal on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 9:13pm

    And when you have no reasonable answer to the point you attempt to deflect by the strawman accusation. So... tell us... just how often do you wear your seatbelt compared to the number of times you get into accidents? Laughing


    by jack burton (not verified) on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 10:29pm

    I wear a seatbelt as the law requires. How often do you wear a helmet in your car? or knee- and elbowpads?


    by Donal on Tue, 09/07/2010 - 8:15am

    So you "only" wear a seat belt because the law requires it, eh. Somehow I am not believing that. And... by properly and maturely assessing the odds of being in a wreck I choose not to wear a "helmet and kneepads." Assessing the odds of me perhaps needing a handgun I choose to carry one. It's part of being an adult decision maker.

    But turning back to the real issue, you choose to think that people who carry guns are foolish because of the small risk they'll need it... however... you take actions such as locking your doors, wearing seatbelts, and having fire extinguishers around even with similar small risks. That, my friend, is the definition of hypocrisy.


    by jack burton (not verified) on Tue, 09/07/2010 - 11:03am

    It is too bad that you don't have the confidence in your beliefs to argue without insults and straw men.


    by Donal on Tue, 09/07/2010 - 11:11am

    Still beating that strawman dead horse, eh. And pointing out the obvious flaws in your arguments is not an "insult." If you are going to post your thoughts for the world to see and comment on then man up a little and grow a thicker skin.


    by jack burton (not verified) on Tue, 09/07/2010 - 11:22am

    I agree completely with your line of reasoning here, jack. To me the issue isn't whether the risk is small (as your seat belt argument aptly points out), but how the risk of not owning a gun compares to the risk of owning a gun. I want to point out that regardless of how one feels about those relative risks, I strongly believe the Consitution supports gun ownership, and not just in a "well-regulated miltia". So, that aside (i.e, I'm arguing from a logical point-of-view, and not from a take-away-your-gun point-of-view), I think that for most people, the risk of owning a gun (accidental discharge, firing at a friend or relative coming into your house late at night, etc.) is higher than the risk of not owning a gun (e.g., not being able to defend yourself). For me, this is borne out not just in national statistics (which vary depending on whose collecting them, it seems), but in personal experience (although "the plural of anecdote is not data"), as I've had a couple of family members accidently discharge their guns (luckily without fatality, but not without trips to the emergency room), but none who have been assaulted in such a way that a gun would've protected them. YMMV (and I'm sure it does).

    Of course, in addition to the two points-of-view I laid out (do you have the right to own a gun, does owning a gun make you personally safer), there's a third, which is also debatable: are we as a society safer when more people own guns? For example, there is some statistical evidence that owning a heavier vehicle means you personally will be (slightly) less likely to be injured in a collision with another vehicle. Of course, you're more (significantly) likely to injure the people in the other vehicle. Looking at the big picture, we're collectively safer when people drive lighter cars (as long as the lightness isn't due to leaving out safety features). With guns, there are collective pros and cons just as there are individual pros and cons.


    by Atheist (not verified) on Tue, 09/07/2010 - 11:14am

    Atheist says:

    I think that for most people, the risk of owning a gun (accidental discharge, firing at a friend or relative coming into your house late at night, etc.) is higher than the risk of not owning a gun (e.g., not being able to defend yourself).

    Jack replies:

    Approximately 360 MILLION guns in America.

    If only TEN PERCENT of the guns were "at risk" then that would mean that there would be at least 36 MILLION nasty accidental things happening with guns each year.

    Is there? Of course not.

    If only ONE PERCENT of the guns were "at risk" then that would mean that there would be at least 3.6 MILLION nasty accidental things happening with guns each year.

    Is there? Of course not.

    If only ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT of the guns were "at risk" then that would mean that there would be at least 360,000 nasty accidental things happening with guns each year.

    And if only ONE ONE HUNDETH OF ONE PERCENT of the guns were "out of control" then that would mean that there would be at least 36 thousand nasty accidental things happening with guns each year.

    Is there? Of course not.

    And if only ONE ONE THOUSANDTH OF ONE PERCENT of the guns were "at risk" then that would mean that there would be at least 3,600 nasty accidental things happening with guns each year.

    I think the odds are in favor of the gun owners not doing stupid things with their guns. But some people consider that .0001 is an unacceptable risk. So be it.


    by jack burton (not verified) on Tue, 09/07/2010 - 11:29am

    See Jack Burton's previous discussion about seat belts. The question I posed wasn't about how likely it was, but rather was it more likely than defending yourself against an intruder, etc.

    As for your specifics, I'll take this one:

    And if only ONE ONE HUNDETH OF ONE PERCENT of the guns were "out of control" then that would mean that there would be at least 36 thousand nasty accidental things happening with guns each year.

    Is there? Of course not.

    There are about 29,000 deaths due to accidental discharge per year, according to the Wrong Diagnosis site I found (first one Google returned that didn't seem to have an agenda one way or the other). If one were to posit that the majority of accidental discharges don't cause death (a reasonable assumption, I think), then there are far more than "36 thousand nasty accidental things happening with guns each year". I also note that you're using the number of guns as your base statistic instead of the number of gun owners. Since, again, I'm comparing the two risks (owning a gun, not owning a gun), it seems that the number of gun owners is the more appropriate base statistic there. Extrapolating from the number of accidental gun deaths, I'd guess there are on the order of half a million accidental gun discharges every year (unfortunately, this statistic doesn't seem to be tracked, even as a WAG), or about 1% (based on there being about 50 million gun owners). Granted, this is a complete WAG, but unless you've got a reliable source, I'm not sure why my WAG is worse than yours.


    by Atheist (not verified) on Tue, 09/07/2010 - 11:53am

    Atheist originally said…

    I think that for most people, the risk of owning a gun (accidental discharge, firing at a friend or relative coming into your house late at night, etc.) is higher than the risk of not owning a gun

    Jack replies: Just wanted to repost that so that we are all on the same page that he is not posting about deliberate actions that a bad guy with firearms does to hurt an innocent.


    Athiest says:
    There are about 29,000 deaths due to accidental discharge per year, according to the Wrong Diagnosis site I found (first one Google returned that didn't seem to have an agenda one way or the other).

    Jack replies: This is breaking bad, Dear Readers.

    The website actually makes it very clear that the 29,000 deaths is for ALL uses of firearm. ALL.

    This includes suicides, people shot by cops, bad people shooting other people, and so on.

    Scroll down the page a little bit and you’ll begin to see the actually number of accidental deaths per year.

    To quote: 0.l5 per 100,000 males died from accidental discharge of firearms in the US 2001 (National Vital Statistics Report, CDC, 2003)

    That is 150 deaths. Of males. Lets be charitable and assume that an equal number of women and children died that year. That makes it only 450. Not 29,000.

    That makes every else he posted after that bogus. Totally.

    Here’s a place where you can get great, documented facts about guns…

    http://gunfacts.info

    But let’s look at that figure a little more closely in context of his original post…

    450 out of 360,000,000 guns. Or… 450 out of 80,000,000 gun owners.

    “I think that for most people, the risk of owning a gun (accidental discharge, firing at a friend or relative coming into your house late at night, etc.) is higher than the risk of not owning a gun”

    Most people? Higher than the risk?

    Perhaps to someone who has not really thought thru the issue. But ignorance can be cured. I don't use wild ass guesses. I use facts.  


    by jack burton (not verified) on Tue, 09/07/2010 - 1:21pm

    You are correct that my previous information was incorrect. However, the site you link demonstrates obvious bias and hence sets off my cynicism alarms. Additionally, even if those statistics are correct, they still don't address the relative risks. I don't see any statistics about the injury rates (just the fatalities), and I don't see any statistics about an estimated number of lives saved (or injuries prevented) due to owning a gun.

    Remember my primary point is about relative risk. As with your excellent seatbelt example, the question isn't rather there's a substantial risk in owning a gun, but whether the risk is greater than not owning a gun. I won't dispute that there are other benefits (and costs) besides just injuries/fatalities, but the question I thought we were addressing was specifically about risk of injury/death.

    As for this:

    That makes every else he posted after that bogus. Totally.

    One wrong fact does not make everything else "bogus", unless everything else rested on that fact, and nothing else I posted did rest on that fact. Would one wrong statement you made completely invalidate everything else you said?


    by Atheist (not verified) on Tue, 09/07/2010 - 2:03pm

    But ignorance can be cured. I don't use wild ass guesses. I use facts.

    Then, please, cure my admitted ignorance. I'd like to know the following facts, as well as your sources:

    1. How many people are injured per year due to accidental discharge?
    2. How many are killed? (This one seems to be answered at approximately 0.15 per 100k)
    3. How many people save themselves through the use of firearems from injury or death?

    I'm surprised by the complete lack of easily obtained information on the web regarding #1, but mabye I'm just not searching on the correct terms. As I've said, I know several people (including a couple relatives) who have injured themselves (or others) with accidental discharges. Two of these required trips to the emergency room, whereas the others were not reported (which is probably against the law). Here are some other stories from people who appear to be pro-gun:

    http://www.thehighroad.us/showthread.php?t=282550

    http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=385915

    Those stories strongly suggest it's not as rare an event as you seem to believe.


    by Atheist (not verified) on Tue, 09/07/2010 - 2:10pm






    Extrapolating from the number of accidental gun deaths, I'd guess there are on the order of half a million accidental gun discharges every year






    Atheist sez
    information was incorrect. However, the site you link demonstrates obvious bias and hence sets off my cynicism alarms.

    Jack replies: Yes, they are pro-freedom but that doesn’t change the fact that they document and foot note every piece of info so that you can see the original cite for it. Does footnoting always set off alarms for you?

    Athiest sez:

    Additionally, even if those statistics are correct, they still don't address the relative risks.

    Jack replies: Only because you don’t understand the concept of relative risk. If I own a gun I have a .001 chance or somewhere thereabout of having an accident occur to kill someone. If I don’t own a gun I am 100 percent at the mercy of any badguy who chooses to do harm to me.

    Atheist sez:

    I don't see any statistics about the injury rates (just the fatalities), and I don't see any statistics about an estimated number of lives saved (or injuries prevented) due to owning a gun.

    Jack replies: That is because the injury rate is so low the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission doesn’t even keep track of it. I am not denying that it exists… but there is no formal tracking because of the comparison is so low compared to other, more deadly items we all have.

    As for lives defensive gun uses… that ranges in studies from several million a year to a couple of hundred thousand. As you would know if you read the gunfacts book with it’s cited and footnoted information.

    Athiest sez:

    Remember my primary point is about relative risk. As with your excellent seatbelt example, the question isn't rather there's a substantial risk in owning a gun, but whether the risk is greater than not owning a gun. I won't dispute that there are other benefits (and costs) besides just injuries/fatalities, but the question I thought we were addressing was specifically about risk of injury/death.

    Jack replies:

    Owning a gun saved my life one time. Not having owned it, or not having it on me at the time would have seen very bad things happen to me. I’ll settle for that miniscule risk.


    Atheist sez:

    One wrong fact does not make everything else "bogus", unless everything else rested on that fact, and nothing else I posted did rest on that fact.

    Jack replies: Really?

    Well, someone posted the following under your name…

    “Extrapolating from the number of accidental gun deaths, I'd guess there are on the order of half a million accidental gun discharges every year”

    Which was the entire point of your post, eh.

    Atheist sez:

    Would one wrong statement you made completely invalidate everything else you said?


    Jack replies:

    Catch me when you think I make an entire thrust of an argument upon a wrong statement and then we’ll talk about it.


    Athiest sez:

    Then, please, cure my admitted ignorance. I'd like to know the following facts, as well as your sources:
    How many people are injured per year due to accidental discharge?
    How many are killed? (This one seems to be answered at approximately 0.15 per 100k)
    How many people save themselves through the use of firearems from injury or death?

    Jack replies:

    No one knows but it is not very many or everyone would know.

    Couple hundred a year.

    Couple hundred thousand to a couple million.

    That was not hard, eh.


    Atheist sez:

    I'm surprised by the complete lack of easily obtained information on the web regarding #1, but mabye I'm just not searching on the correct terms. As I've said, I know several people (including a couple relatives) who have injured themselves (or others) with accidental discharges.

    Jack replies: I would be more careful if I were you about who I hung around with. I am sure that in certain demographics the number/percentage of negligent discharges can jump dramatically. That just means that the law-abiding citizens actually have less of their very miniscule share of accidents.

    And BTW… I would bet my mortgage those were not accidental discharges but negligent ones.

    Athiest sez:

    Here are some other stories from people who appear to be pro-gun:

    http://www.thehighroad.us/showthread.php?t=282550

    http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=385915

    Those stories strongly suggest it's not as rare an event as you seem to believe.

    Jack replies:

    Never said is was “rare.” Just said that in comparison to the number of guns or gunowners it is an extremely slight percentage. So much so that to try to make a reason to not own a gun is faulty reasoning and logic.

    And yes, people who own guns are more likely to have a not-planned discharge more often than people who don’t own guns. The very same way that people who own cars will always have more auto accidents than people who don’t own cars.


    by jack burton (not verified) on Tue, 09/07/2010 - 3:11pm

    Only because you don’t understand the concept of relative risk. If I own a gun I have a .001 chance or somewhere thereabout of having an accident occur to kill someone. If I don’t own a gun I am 100 percent at the mercy of any badguy who chooses to do harm to me.

    There's a lot I don't know about guns (it's not an important issue for me), but there's not much I don't know about statistics. It's part of what I do for a living. For example, what you've just stated is an example of conflating statistics. Being 100 percent at the mercy of any badguy who chooses to do harm to you (which itself isn't true) ignores the probability that there will be a bad guy who chooses to do harm to you. This is what is known as a conditional probability. The probability that a gun will save your life is something like (it's impossible to include all factors): P(event occurs requring a gun to save your life)*P(event you'll have that gun|event occurs requiring gun)*P(event you use the gun correctly|event you have the gun and it's required), where P(A|B) means probability of A given B.

    Does footnoting always set off alarms for you?

    Now you're creating the straw men that others have accused you of. I was very specific about what set off alarms for me. That link you provided me had no footnotes on its primary page, and obviously I didn't read the whole site. Please stick to the facts and don't try to create disagreements. I wasn't disputing their facts, just stating that I was skeptical. Aren't you skeptical when you read information from sites that are biased against guns, even if they provide footnotes? I.e., would you just trust those footnotes, or would you follow them to see if they're legitimate? I'm being honest with you about what I know and what I don't know, and I ask the same from you.

    As for lives defensive gun uses… that ranges in studies from several million a year to a couple of hundred thousand. As you would know if you read the gunfacts book with it’s cited and footnoted information.

    Did you really expect me to read the entire book? If you've read it, however, perhaps you could provide one of those cited footnotes.

    Owning a gun saved my life one time.

    This probably explains a lot about your perspective and why you're so passionate. If I beleived owning a gun had saved my life, I'd probably be equally as passionate.

    “Extrapolating from the number of accidental gun deaths, I'd guess there are on the order of half a million accidental gun discharges every year”

    Which was the entire point of your post, eh.

    (A) It was something that rested on the previous erroneous fact, but (B) no, it most definitely wasn't the entire point of my post.

    In case you missed it, let me say it again: my point is about relative risks, not absolute risks. Of course, in order to asses relative risks one needs to know something about absolute risks, but so far no one has provided any accurate information on either side of the equation, so we're both going on our guts. The difference is, I'm admitting it.


    Catch me when you think I make an entire thrust of an argument upon a wrong statement and then we’ll talk about it.

    I have been, several times. You don't seem to ackowledge them, however. The primary wrong statement you're making is conflating relative risks with absolute risks. Do you really think you don't make incorrect statements? Another one is where you state that you don't think 36,000 "nasty accidental things" happen with guns each year. I don't know much about guns, but that's obviously false. Yet another one is where you suggest (granted, as an upper limit) that possibly several million lives are saved per year due to owning a gun, assuming that we're still in the same sample space and are referring to only American lives. That would mean that over the course of a typical human life, the majority of Americans would have had their life saved due to them or a family member owning a gun (unless you allow for the same life being saved multiple times, which still implies that the expected number of times my life will be saved by a gun is more than 1/2, if you understand the statistical meaning of expectation).

    I would bet my mortgage those were not accidental discharges but negligent ones.

    You must be definining accidental differently than I do. If you have an accident due to negligence, it's still an accident. Can you give me an example of an accident that isn't due to someone's negligence?

    Never said is was “rare.”

    Less than "ONE ONE HUNDETH OF ONE PERCENT" constitutes rare in my book.

    Just said that in comparison to the number of guns or gunowners it is an extremely slight percentage. So much so that to try to make a reason to not own a gun is faulty reasoning and logic.

    Again, you're conflating relative risk and absolute risk. You really seemed to understand this distinction when you were arguing for gun ownership, but now you don't seem to get it anymore.

    The very same way that people who own cars will always have more auto accidents than people who don’t own cars.

    Right, and I would argue that, overall, it's safer not to own a car. That's not to say it's better not to own a car, but it is safer, which is the point we're debating.


    by Atheist (not verified) on Tue, 09/07/2010 - 3:45pm

    I started a new thread at the bottom so we would not be reduced to only one word per line.


    by jack burton (not verified) on Tue, 09/07/2010 - 4:46pm

    "BTW, prior restraint refers to censorship, not regulation."

     

    Prior restraint restrains actions prior to them being taken. It does not refer only to censorship, although it has been used often in that area.


    by Jack Burton (not verified) on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 8:04pm

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Prior+Restraint


    by Donal on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 9:09pm

    Your cite does not preclude it from being used for 2nd Amendment issues. And it is becoming increasingly recognized as an important issue in the legal community.

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aaxf1cu8kVwJ:www.sc...

     

    http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/colloq2.htm

     

    http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html

     

    http://www.issues-views.com/index.php/sect/22000/article/22001


    by jack burton (not verified) on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 10:38pm

    "...hence I am hardly sanguine about every Tom, Dick and Harriet carrying concealed weapons, too.""

    As I posted... totally willing to ignore the past 30 years  of history with millions of CCW holders spread across the country in multiple states. And he admits it again. No fundalmental difference between this blog writer and a flat earther in their willingness to look at actual reality.

    "Even police officers have lost it."

    Sounds like a case for disarming every police officer, eh. I bet you are "hardly sanguine about every Tom, Dick and Harriet" getting teaching licenses since there are daily reports in the media about how a very few teachers are sexually abusing their students?

     


    by Jack Burton (not verified) on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 7:58pm

    As a matter of fact I do think we should be careful about who teaches our kids.


    by Donal on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 9:12pm

    But do you worry that licensing teachers ..."may lead to more problems than it solves."


    by jack burton (not verified) on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 10:22pm

    I am feeling compelled to point out for those with no experience in this area, that in states which have concealed carry permitting, people who go in and sign up for a concealed carry permit have given up a lot of privacy and the government now has very complete information about them, their residence, and has run a criminal background check on them.  It is unlikely that someone who owns a weapon and carrys it legally with a concealed permit is going to lightly make the decision to commit a crime.  The federales will know exactly how to find them.  Most of the problems in my area are committed by people who do not have permits, do not have legally obtained guns, and are not responsible citizens.  To block responsible citizens from gun ownership and carry will not reduce the number of crimes committed by irresponsible citizens or criminal people.   Please do not fall into the delusion of thinking it will.   

    An image from a story several years old has stayed in my consciousness which to me exemplified the positive spirit of responsible citizens carrying weapons such as guns.  A grandmother, who had spent her youth in the required military service of her country, being well trained and disciplined in the use of guns found it necessary when seeing in the marketplace, a terrorist preparing to set off a bomb to explode the market, the swarming crowd and himself.  She pulled out her weapon in a no nonsense and competent way, and dispatched the would be bomb exploder thwarting his plan, fortunately before he had a chance to initiate the device.  This happened in Israel.  In fact, in several instances of violent incidents in my region, if someone had been there who was trained and competent in use of a firearm, perhaps a lot of people might not have died, at the hands of a would be terrorist or a deranged person.  Victims including police officers taken off guard at coffee shops or restaurants. 


    by GFS on Tue, 09/07/2010 - 4:25am

    About the concerns some of you seem to have regarding arming teachers...

    Most teachers are not amenable to being armed.  Most that I know do not like guns, period.  They are not interested in owning or carrying a firearm.  They do not want to be around them.  And perhaps this is a good thing, as no one should be carrying a firearm who is not well trained and who does not have the correct attitude and mental discipline to do so safely and responsibly.  If someone does not like guns, is afraid of guns, or is easily excitable and will not be able to maintain a well trained calm presence of mind in an emergency situation, they will not only be a hazard to others, but may in fact contribute to the perpetrator of a crime obtaining a weapon by disarming the one who is not suited for the responsibility.

    That is not to say all teachers feel that way.  Perhaps some might agree to some sort of program which includes training and regulated practice and qualifying in order to maintain the ability to do so.  I know a retired police officer who became a teacher in my town.  He told me that there was no way in _____ he would agree to do this, even though he is an exemplary candidate as he continues to keep his skills up to police standards.  His reservations are based on the fact he figures there would be little liability accepted by generally lawsuit-phobic school district administrations, causing them,  (if anyone actually had to use their weapon),  to push that employee out on a limb and then quickly saw it off. 

     So, it is not likely really, that arming of teachers would ever happen.  More likely, the taxpayers would have to pay more at local or state level to hire actual police officers to patrol our schools, as many larger school districts have already done, as well as install metal detectors. 


    by GFS on Tue, 09/07/2010 - 4:39am

    Jack Burton writes, "No gun control laws have been shown to work. Not one. None of the CDC, the National Academy of Sciences, nor the US Department of Justice, were able to find that ANY gun control reduces VIOLENT CRIME, SUICIDE or ACCIDENTS in any significant manner."

    All I know is this: Canada has long had fairly strict nationwide gun-control laws. Handguns are essentially banned, except for cops and security personnel. Long guns are all registered, and their owners need a firearms permit. And my odds of getting shot dead walking down a Montreal street are one-fifth those of the average American in their home city. I find that fact comforting.

    Second, I reject the argument Angry Mouse makes -- that liberals need to support the second amendment because its defense is of a piece with all the other parts of the Bill of Rights. Sure, it's the basic law of the land. But as the Supreme Court demonstrated in its Citizens United ruling, the exact meaning of a handful of constitutional words is open to wide interpretation. At the time it was written, muzzle-loading muskets were state of the art. Did the Founding Fathers imagine a future in which "arms" would include Stinger missiles?

    In any case, the current list of guaranteed rights is not sacrosanct. The U.S. amended it a dozen times during the last century; twice, it was to change its mind about alcohol. Canada amended its constitution 10 times in less than two decades. For practical reasons (NRA clout) repeal of the second amendment is not on the table, but that doesn't make it a bad idea. Does anyone really feel safer knowing they (and others) can openly carry a handgun into a bar? Seriously?


    by acanuck on Tue, 09/07/2010 - 4:44am

    Until a few years ago, Alaska had an open carry law.  You could carry your weapon, but it had to be openly displayed.  At that time and for many decades previously, Alaskans pretty comfortably dealt with the fact that a large number of it's citizens did indeed carry guns, handguns, on belts on their person, and the ubiquitous rifle in the truck, often carried to deal with problems that might occur with bear or other critters.  Even in Alaska things have changed. 

    Throughout America, many people now go into a state of panic if they actually see someone carrying a gun, real, paintball, or kids with unfortunately real looking water blasters.  They tend to call and tie up 911 lines.  Hence, Alaska was discussing passing a concealed carry law, so that people who still wished to carry a gun (handgun) would have to get a permit and carry it concealed, therefore avoiding upsetting the part of the citizenry who do not like guns and choose to avoid them.  I believe that this was enacted into law, but if someone knows that is not true, please feel free to correct me.  I did not closely follow the outcome of this legislation. 


    by GFS on Tue, 09/07/2010 - 5:06am

    Acanuck writes:

    Jack Burton writes, "No gun control laws have been shown to work. Not one. None of the CDC, the National Academy of Sciences, nor the US Department of Justice, were able to find that ANY gun control reduces VIOLENT CRIME, SUICIDE or ACCIDENTS in any significant manner."

    Jack replies: Errr… I did not post that. Getting off to a bad start already.



    Canuck writes:

    All I know is this: Canada has long had fairly strict nationwide gun-control laws. Handguns are essentially banned, except for cops and security personnel. Long guns are all registered, and their owners need a firearms permit. And my odds of getting shot dead walking down a Montreal street are one-fifth those of the average American in their home city. I find that fact comforting.


    Jack replies: Comparing the two societies is pretty silly. And I think you will find there are many handgun owners in Canada. You don’t have any cite for your statement.

    The long gun registration has failed miserably. Any simple google search will tell you that.

    The odds of my getting shot walking down my city are far, far less than walking on the south side of chicago… and we have many more guns. I don’t think the guns cause the “getting shot” aspect.


    Canuck says:

    Second, I reject the argument Angry Mouse makes -- that liberals need to support the second amendment because its defense is of a piece with all the other parts of the Bill of Rights.

    Jack replies: That’s okay… you don’t get a vote on the matter. Reject away… no one here really cares.

    Canuck says:

    Sure, it's the basic law of the land. But as the Supreme Court demonstrated in its Citizens United ruling, the exact meaning of a handful of constitutional words is open to wide interpretation.

    Jack replies: The SC went for more freedom in line with the 1st Amendment. That was pretty easy.

    Canuck says:

    At the time it was written, muzzle-loading muskets were state of the art. Did the Founding Fathers imagine a future in which "arms" would include Stinger missiles?

    Jack replies: Actually, machine guns were invented by da Vinci. That pretty much dates before the FF, eh. And the writers of the Consititution were all learned men, many of whom were inventors themselves. They quite well understood progress and saw it happening in their lifetimes. That is why they wrote “arms” and not “muskets.” BTW, based upon your reasoning we simply cannot apply the 1st to radio, TV and the net.

    Canuck sez:

    In any case, the current list of guaranteed rights is not sacrosanct.

    Jack relies: Again, you don’t get a vote on that concept.

    Cannuck sez:

    The U.S. amended it a dozen times during the last century; twice, it was to change its mind about alcohol. Canada amended its constitution 10 times in less than two decades. For practical reasons (NRA clout) repeal of the second amendment is not on the table, but that doesn't make it a bad idea.

    Jack replies: The Consitutiion has an amendment process for changing the variouis ways the government relates to it’s duties. The Bill of Rights acknowledges the natural rights of people that exist separately and pre-dating the Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms is there even if there is no Bill of Rights.

    Cannuck sez:

    Does anyone really feel safer knowing they (and others) can openly carry a handgun into a bar? Seriously?

    Jack replies: Feeling a little paranoid, eh. Think that people with guns are out to “get you.”


    by jack burton (not verified) on Tue, 09/07/2010 - 11:19am

    I apologize for attributing HerbM's statement to you. That was sloppy. And yes, Canada allows possession of handguns by members of recognized shooting clubs. I happen to know one, which is why I wrote that handguns were "essentially" banned. The key difference with the U.S. is that such owners are permitted neither concealed nor open carry. Rules for securing the guns at home and transporting them to the range are very strict.

    No country shares more in common with the U.S. than Canada. Why is comparing their gun experiences silly? As for my stats on relative homicides by firearm, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence Canada: 0.54 per 100,000 people. U.S.: 2.97. More than five times deadlier. I'd suggest laws about guns and attitudes toward guns are both factors.

    Opinion on the long-gun registry is mixed. The current Conservative govt wants to scrap it, but the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police says it's a useful tool. Leaders of all three federal opposition parties want it to continue. We'll know in a month or so.

    I understand your argument that the first 10 amendments constitute natural rights that cannot be repealed, but I dispute it. Not that I think the second amendment will ever be modified, much less repealed. But the later flip-flop on the right to make, sell and drink alcoholic beverages establishes a clear precedent. Even if rights can exist that are not enumerated, the constitution (as duly amended) can spell out what those rights (and their limitations) are.

    Finally, as to your assertion that I "do not get a vote": I thought we were debating ideas here. 


    by acanuck on Tue, 09/07/2010 - 6:35pm

    Canuck sez: I apologize for attributing HerbM's statement to you. That was sloppy.

    Jack relies: It happens…

    Canuck sez: And yes, Canada allows possession of handguns by members of recognized shooting clubs. I happen to know one, which is why I wrote that handguns were "essentially" banned. The key difference with the U.S. is that such owners are permitted neither concealed nor open carry. Rules for securing the guns at home and transporting them to the range are very strict.

    Jack replies: Considerable difference between “essentially” banned and “not banned at all.”

    Canuck sez: No country shares more in common with the U.S. than Canada. Why is comparing their gun experiences silly?

    Jack replies: Other than a border and a language there is considerable difference between us. The greater part of the beginning of your country was made up from all the pro-suck-up-to-the-authorities that ran from the revolution here. And you never experienced anywhere near the intake of foreigners that we did over the decades.

    Cannuck sez: I understand your argument that the first 10 amendments constitute natural rights that cannot be repealed, but I dispute it.

    Jack replies: Again, you don’t have a vote on it.

    Cannuck sez: Not that I think the second amendment will ever be modified, much less repealed. But the later flip-flop on the right to make, sell and drink alcoholic beverages establishes a clear precedent. Even if rights can exist that are not enumerated, the constitution (as duly amended) can spell out what those rights (and their limitations) are.

    Jack replies: Comparing the attitude of the nation towards prohibition and gunownership is pretty silly.

    Cannuck sez: Finally, as to your assertion that I "do not get a vote": I thought we were debating ideas here.

    Jack replies: We are… and I put forth the idea that you do not get a vote on this subject. Do you dispute my idea?


    by jack burton (not verified) on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 11:52am

    This post is headlined "Firearms = Freedom, Discuss." I took Donal's invitation personally.


    by acanuck on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 1:18pm

    And what part of "you don't get a vote on that" is NOT a valid part of the discussion?


    by jack burton (not verified) on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 8:10pm

    Dude...acanuck is really too TOO polite, 'cause you really DON'T know anything, do you? And that's the thing about guns. It's the clueless blowhards that feel like they most need 'em.

    For starters. You have to rule out Canada as a relevant comparison, because if - as everyone else on Earth seems able to grasp - the two countries are two of the most comparable nations on Earth, your stupid gun-fetish would be seen for the socially-damaging little farce it is, right? So why don't we get right to it.

    - If Canada didn't face "anywhere near the intake of foreigners" as the US, then do tell - genius boy - WHO the citizens are today? Cree? Iroquois? Bong.... Wrong. They were foreigners, Jack! Wooooooo...... scaaaaaaaaary foreigners......!

    - Try visiting Toronto sometime. The world's most cosmopolitan, "multi-cultural" city. Lot's of "non-whites" too, if that's what you mean by "foreigners." Plus... it's safe as houses.

    - More. "Suck up to the authorities?" What an ignorant little twerp you are. Try this. Quebec makes up 30% of the population, just for starters. How many of them were sucking up to English authorities? Newfoundland refused to join Confederation - as did Nova Scotians. So Canada started off with 40%+ of its people - minimum - who weren't too keen on "the authorities." What do you figure the ratio was in the 13 colonies, of people who actively rebelled, versus sat on the fence or left? Sadly, you'd have to read a book to figure that out, so you're screwed.

    - Which means - lard-head - your idea that you can't compare Canada and the US is... lard-headed. Which is what we increasingly get from know-nothing Rightwingers in the States, who can't face the fact that their own stupidity is taking the country down the toilet. Idiots who think having guns is the way forward in the 21st Century! Yeeeeeehaw, jest gimme someone to shoot Gramma!

    Try this Bubba. Your country now lags Canada in longevity, and infant mortality. And in post-secondary education. In home ownership. In personal wealth, and debt loads. Your murder rates and gun deaths are higher. You're in two stupid wars - both brought on by the fact that you have the emotional life of a 3 year old, and have translated that into politics - and added guns. Your music, film, and book life - which was once fairly stellar - has fallen into the crapper. You're in hock beyond belief, your banking and finance sectors are failures, you suck down oil and pay your enemies for it, and you wanna talk about God and guns. All, in a nation that ONCE soared. And guns are your answer.

    And here's the saddest thing. YOU... Jack Burton.... do have a vote in it. Which I'm sure you proudly cast, for one asshole after another, whichever one was bleating the loudest about guns and Constitutions and freedom and Chiang Kia Shek.

    Oh how the mighty have fallen.


    by quinn esq on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 1:39pm

    Your music, film, and book life - which was once fairly stellar - has fallen into the crapper.

    We're keeping Neil Young.  You can have Pamela Anderson back.


    by Austin Train on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 2:23pm

    Let's hang on Anne Murray. And Gordon Lightfoot. That pretty much wraps it up. Oh... and that noted gunslinger Daddy Cartwright.


    by jack burton (not verified) on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 7:37pm

    Gee Quinn, I've been trying to keep my troll on a diet. He's certainly not ready for such rich food.


    by Donal on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 2:46pm

    Next time I'm gonna smack him with my purse.


    by quinn esq on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 3:16pm

    And I am sure you'll do a much better job than you did with your posting. You certainly could not possibly do worse. Laughing


    by jack burton (not verified) on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 7:40pm

    Haven't been able to answer a single thought posted to you, eh. If I am "on a diet" it is simply because you have nothing to say of value.


    by jack burton (not verified) on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 7:39pm

    Jeez, quinn! Jack's new here; did you have to go full Q on him? But thanks for proving my point that Canadians prefer verbal violence to the more lethal kind.

    Sorry, Austin. We'll let Neil live in California if he wants, but he's now an officer of the Order of Canada (the country's highest civilian honor) and he has to stay a citizen if he hopes to work his way up to companion.


    by acanuck on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 3:56pm

    One of the joys of internet "dialogue" is that Jack doesn't get to vote on what the other party says.

    What a Bubba.


    by quinn esq on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 4:50pm

    Never said I get to vote on comments... but I do get to mock you and have the world hang their head in shame at the feeble response of you and your fellow countrymen.

    So far I've managed to keep straight who posted what. That's more than you guys have done successfully.


    by jack burton (not verified) on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 7:46pm

    My, my... if that is the "full Q" I would hate to experience the "part Q".

    What happens... does the poster write at only the fourth grade level instead of the eighth grade dreck I had to wade thru to see if there was any points besides rank envy and jealousy for America.


    by jack burton (not verified) on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 7:43pm

    The mighty quinn sez:

    Dude...

    Jack replies:

    Well, I can see we’re getting off to a stellar start…. I am impelled to read further to see how many shagadelics you manage to drop in.

    The mighty quinn sez:

    acanuck is really too TOO polite, 'cause you really DON'T know anything, do you? And that's the thing about guns. It's the clueless blowhards that feel like they most need 'em.

    Jack replies:

    And ~that~ is really the best you can do, eh.

    The mighty quinn sez:

    For starters. You have to rule out Canada as a relevant comparison, because if - as everyone else on Earth seems able to grasp - the two countries are two of the most comparable nations on Earth,

    Jack replies:

    In some ways, yes… in others not so much. And the not so much ways are pretty important. If you want to deny that, go ahead.

    The mighty quinn sez:

    your stupid gun-fetish would be seen for the socially-damaging little farce it is, right? So why don't we get right to it.

    Jack replies:

    And ~that~ is really the best you can do, eh.

    The mighty quinn sez:

    - If Canada didn't face "anywhere near the intake of foreigners" as the US, then do tell - genius boy - WHO the citizens are today? Cree? Iroquois? Bong.... Wrong. They were foreigners, Jack! Wooooooo...... scaaaaaaaaary foreigners......!

    Jack replies:

    Any normal person would have understood that I was referring to the wave upon wave of immigrants from the civil way on which totally changed the demographics of American culture. Not those who came aboard the Mayflower. But I forgot I was dealing with Canadians reading this. My bad… I apologize.

    The mighty quinn sez:

    - Try visiting Toronto sometime. The world's most cosmopolitan, "multi-cultural" city. Lot's of "non-whites" too, if that's what you mean by "foreigners." Plus... it's safe as houses.

    Jack replies:

    One city? My, my… that’s certainly impressive. [snicker…]

    The mighty quinn sez:

    - More. "Suck up to the authorities?" What an ignorant little twerp you are.

    Jack replies:

    You really trying to argue that the Royalists who fled to Canada during the Revolutionary War were not suck ups. Good luck with that one.

    The mighty quinn sez:

    Try this. Quebec makes up 30% of the population, just for starters. How many of them were sucking up to English authorities? Newfoundland refused to join Confederation - as did Nova Scotians. So Canada started off with 40%+ of its people - minimum - who weren't too keen on "the authorities." What do you figure the ratio was in the 13 colonies, of people who actively rebelled, versus sat on the fence or left?

    Jack replies:

    The French has their own authorities to suck up too. Someone who’s been a serf for generations isn’t going to throw that overboard overnight when the country has a king/queen over it. And yes, the canucks have been taught for how many generations that someone is superior to them just by right of having a royal birth? I am not from a country like you where individuals have to repress the urge to kiss the king’s a$$ when he walks by.

    The mighty quinn sez:

    Sadly, you'd have to read a book to figure that out, so you're screwed.

    Jack replies:

    And ~that~ is really the best you can do, eh.

    The mighty quinn sez:

    - Which means - lard-head - your idea that you can't compare Canada and the US is... lard-headed. Which is what we increasingly get from know-nothing Rightwingers in the States, who can't face the fact that their own stupidity is taking the country down the toilet. Idiots who think having guns is the way forward in the 21st Century! Yeeeeeehaw, jest gimme someone to shoot Gramma!

    Jack replies:

    And ~that~ is really the best you can do, eh.


    The mighty quinn sez:

    Try this Bubba. Your country now lags Canada in longevity, and infant mortality. And in post-secondary education. In home ownership. In personal wealth, and debt loads. Your murder rates and gun deaths are higher.

    Jack replies:

    And I also live in a country where my rights to free speech cannot be taken away on the whim of an unelected, unaccountable board of know-nothings like you in Canada. I’ll keep to my side, thank you.

    The mighty quinn sez:

    You're in two stupid wars - both brought on by the fact that you have the emotional life of a 3 year old, and have translated that into politics - and added guns. Your music, film, and book life - which was once fairly stellar - has fallen into the crapper. You're in hock beyond belief, your banking and finance sectors are failures, you suck down oil and pay your enemies for it, and you wanna talk about God and guns. All, in a nation that ONCE soared. And guns are your answer.

    Jack replies:

    And ~that~ is really the best you can do, eh. I can see the spittle flying out of your mouth as you type that… the redness of your face giving indication that a stroke is imminent… sweat staining your dainty ascot… the fingers mashing down on the keyboard so hard you just may have to get a new one.

    Don’t think I am going to pay for one for you.

    The mighty quinn sez:

    And here's the saddest thing. YOU... Jack Burton.... do have a vote in it.

    Jack replies:

    Raw envy is a very ugly emotion.

    The mighty quinn sez:

    Which I'm sure you proudly cast, for one asshole after another, whichever one was bleating the loudest about guns and Constitutions and freedom and Chiang Kia Shek.

    Jack replies:

    Too funny. Doesn’t even begin to match up to the standard “post of the week” that I see from people such as this but it was a good effort for an amateur. C+ maybe. With some work and editing he could have gotten it up to at least a B- but he rushed it.

    The mighty quinn sez:

    Oh how the mighty have fallen.

    Jack replies:

    The epitaph for the British Empire, eh.


    by jack burton (not verified) on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 7:36pm

    Quinn, I told you that was too rich. Now look what he did on the carpet. I'm not cleaning that up.


    by Donal on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 7:38pm

    And ~that~ is really the best you can do, eh.Laughing


    by jack burton (not verified) on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 7:49pm

    Jack. Let's try the most simple of issues. Where.... did Canadians come from?

    Apparently, you think we arrived here without the need for "wave upon wave" of immigration. You've referenced it twice, so I can only assume you think it.

    It's puzzling to me though. Apparently, our English and Scottish forebears in Eastern Canada must have decided to give Ukrainian names to their children as they moved West settle and break the land. And Italian and Polish and Portuguese and Somalian and Nigerian names to those arriving in Toronto. And Chinese names to those in Vancouver.

    Jack. Dear, blessedly shy of a clue Jack... Canada has had a higher immigration rate than the US for many, many years. Which is why I thought the example of the city of Toronto (the GTA over 6 million now, Jack) might mean something to you. Sigh.

    Anyway. Glad to know we all came over on the Mayflower, and that the monarchy is so strong, and that you know soooooo much about the belief system of those taking various stances during the Revolution, and that you feel the US media is just BURSTING with freedoms!

    You've shat on Donal's carpet, Jack.

    Bad Jack, BAD.

    (Sorry Donal. I figured for SURE he'd at least know where we came from. Sigh.)


    by quinn esq on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 8:07pm

    Quinn sez:

    Jack. Let's try the most simple of issues. Where.... did Canadians come from?

    Apparently, you think we arrived here without the need for "wave upon wave" of immigration. You've referenced it twice, so I can only assume you think it.

    Jack replies:

    If you think the canucks have gone thru a similar ellis island experience then you are welcome to attempt to cite it. It’s funny, though. I was watching Patty Duke on PBS the other day and she said back in the old country (Ireland) they would hold two different kinds of wakes. A wake for the dead, and an “American wake” for those leaving for America since they proably would never see them again. I thought it was funny that she never mentioned a “Canadian wake.” Wonder why.

    Quinn sez:

    It's puzzling to me though. Apparently, our English and Scottish forebears in Eastern Canada must have decided to give Ukrainian names to their children as they moved West settle and break the land. And Italian and Polish and Portuguese and Somalian and Nigerian names to those arriving in Toronto. And Chinese names to those in Vancouver.

    Jack replies: Never said you had none. Said you didn’t have anywhere near the amount that we had. I know it is hard for you to keep that straight but we do have scroll back, you know.


    Quinn sez:


    Jack. Dear, blessedly shy of a clue Jack... Canada has had a higher immigration rate than the US for many, many years. Which is why I thought the example of the city of Toronto (the GTA over 6 million now, Jack) might mean something to you. Sigh.

    Jack replies:

    Got a cite for that… and jezz, you’re really working that one, single example city over, aren’t you. I almost have more than six million people in my backyard neighborhood.

    Quinn sez:

    Anyway. Glad to know we all came over on the Mayflower, and that the monarchy is so strong, and that you know soooooo much about the belief system of those taking various stances during the Revolution, and that you feel the US media is just BURSTING with freedoms!

    You've shat on Donal's carpet, Jack.

    Jack replies:

    You really do think that is the very best you can do, eh. At least you’ve calmed down enough so that I can read this without fear that I was provoking a stroke in you. That would make me feel bad for a few seconds or so. The Norwegians, now they are tough. It takes days to provoke them to as much eyeball poppin’ and flying spittle as it only took you with two posts.

    Quinn sez:

    Bad Jack, BAD.

    Jack replies:

    Want to make it personal, Quinn?

    Let's take a little quiz here, eh?

    When confronted in a dark parking lot by a thug with a knife who is threatening to take away his date and rape her would the date prefer to be with...

    1) Quinn, who will whip out his cell phone to call 911 so that a MAN with a gun can come rescue him.

    Or

    2) Jack, who will calmly dispatch the goblin with his carry gun which allows them to go on their way safe and sound.


    by jack burton (not verified) on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 8:24pm

    This is patently unfair. I demand the "full s" or "full t". This so-called "full q" nonsense is pathetic. Give me somebody who can at least get it up to a "full r".


    by jack burton (not verified) on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 8:26pm

    Dude. What's the point of providing a cite to a man who's not even smart enough to read Wikipedia? Go read "immigration to Canada." Read where Canada has the highest per capita immigration in the world. Then check out Toronto - the most multicultural city going. Not NYC or LA or Miami. And yes, they're mostly non-white - Toronto is just passing the 50% non-white mark now. I'm moving later this month to the Danforth neighbourhood, known as "Greektown" for some odd reason. And if you don't like Toronto, go read something on Vancouver. Huge non-white populations, yet highest property value of any City in North America, but Gun Control laws.

    You embarrass yourself when you don't even understand the most basic facts. We have people from every ethnic group under the sun. We always have. We presently have the world's highest immigration rate. Our ethnic mix undoubtedly varies somewhat from yours, formerly with more Scots, more French, Ukrainians, Dutch, but - now - more Asian and African, again as a % of population. It's not that it's better or worse, just that it... is.

    But apparently, because you didn't hear PATTY DUKE TALK ABOUT IT, IN A STORY ABOUT ELLIS ISLAND, it didn't happen? My God man, do you know how stupid you sound?

    And dude. For anyone who knows me, my history, and my style, the fact that you would have to set up some imaginary late night parking lot confrontation to try and convince yourself that I'm some wimpy little guy who needs a"MAN" with a gun to help, is really pretty funny. Just as a heads up, I'm from a farm family, 9 kids in my own family, with 6 boys, and in the other farm families, 16 boys in all. The 5 boys in the house next door are 6' 3", 6' 5" and3 are 6' 8" and 6' 9". My Dad fought heavyweight, and I was a hockey "goon" at the end of my playing days. And yes, loads of them were in the military, for over 800 years now, if you're interested in Scottish family history. Google "Earl Marischal."

    So, ummmmm, yeah. I'd be peeing my pants and need a blogger like you with a gun.

    Ta ta Jack.


    by quinn esq on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 9:11pm

    And just for fun, note how your discussion of guns repeatedly tracks over to.... immigration. Amusing. Seems to me that you white American guys just can't handle your immigrants without a weapon. Sounds kinda wimpy to me, but if that's your style, good on ya Jack..

    by quinn esq on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 9:13pm

    Quinn sez: Dude.

    Jack replies:

    Oh… I am so hoping that I’ll get a “full r” here. I’ll even settle for a “full q +” but I feel I am going to be disappointed again since it’s starting out with a lame dude.

    Quinn sez:

    What's the point of providing a cite to a man who's not even smart enough to read Wikipedia? Go read "immigration to Canada." Read where Canada has the highest per capita immigration in the world.

    Jack replies:

    Ahhh, yes, Wikipedia… which no college in the country accepts as a cite in a student’s paper because anybody can get on there and post anything about any subject without any verification.

    Quinn sez:
    Then check out Toronto - the most multicultural city going.

    Jack replies:

    Have you always had this fixation about a single city or is this a new development?

    Quinn sez:

    Not NYC or LA or Miami. And yes, they're mostly non-white - Toronto is just passing the 50% non-white mark now. I'm moving later this month to the Danforth neighbourhood, known as "Greektown" for some odd reason. And if you don't like Toronto, go read something on Vancouver. Huge non-white populations, yet highest property value of any City in North America, but Gun Control laws.

    Jack replies: You post that as if you are surprised that property values are “high.” You have to point that out especially for a place with “non white” population. Have you always been this racist or is it a recent development. I know that canucks in general have problems with non-white people but I can see from your example that this is very true.

    Quinn sez:

    You embarrass yourself when you don't even understand the most basic facts. We have people from every ethnic group under the sun.

    Jack replies: It’s hard to embarrass myself when you are the one making up from thin air what you think I don’t understand. Please point out to the world for their understanding where I ever said that canada didn’t have ethnic groups of any kind. Be specific. Give detail.

    Quinn sez:

    We always have. We presently have the world's highest immigration rate. Our ethnic mix undoubtedly varies somewhat from yours, formerly with more Scots, more French, Ukrainians, Dutch, but - now - more Asian and African, again as a % of population. It's not that it's better or worse, just that it... is.

    Jack replies: Good catch…you saved yourself from another embarrassing racist comment. But again… as I pointed out… I was speaking of the massive waves of immigrents who came in via ellis island… not the ones who came in today on the tarmac at Montreal International.


    Quinn sez:

    But apparently, because you didn't hear PATTY DUKE TALK ABOUT IT, IN A STORY ABOUT ELLIS ISLAND, it didn't happen? My God man, do you know how stupid you sound?

    Jack replies: So you admit then that there were no “Canandian wakes” for all the Irish leaving for your country? Thank you.

    Quinn sez:

    And dude. For anyone who knows me, my history, and my style, the fact that you would have to set up some imaginary late night parking lot confrontation to try and convince yourself that I'm some wimpy little guy who needs a"MAN" with a gun to help, is really pretty funny. Just as a heads up, I'm from a farm family, 9 kids in my own family, with 6 boys, and in the other farm families, 16 boys in all. The 5 boys in the house next door are 6' 3", 6' 5" and3 are 6' 8" and 6' 9". My Dad fought heavyweight, and I was a hockey "goon" at the end of my playing days. And yes, loads of them were in the military, for over 800 years now, if you're interested in Scottish family history. Google "Earl Marischal."

    Jack replies: Sure you are… and on the internet no one knows if you’re a dog. That is the first thing everyone learns. You’ve been woofing for quite some time now. Down, boy.

    Quinn sez:

    And just for fun, note how your discussion of guns repeatedly tracks over to.... immigration. Amusing. Seems to me that you white American guys just can't handle your immigrants without a weapon. Sounds kinda wimpy to me, but if that's your style, good on ya Jack..

    Jack replies:

    I mentioned it once. One time. You’ve shown that your writing ability is down in the middle school level but “one time” and “repeatedly” are not the same in math.

    I answered your comments concerning immigration. Unless you want me to put a lot of ……….. and ------------- in the sentences it’s hard to hold that dialogue that canuck was posting about if you keep bringing a subject up and then expect me not to answer it.

    But perhaps you do. So be it.

    And which “white Americans” are you speaking of, eh. You must have me confused with some other Jack Burton. Been watching too many movies? But you don’t care, eh. Just gives you a chance to make one more racist remark.

    Pitiful. But expected. Didn’t even rise to a “full m or n”.


    by jack burton (not verified) on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 9:54pm

    You seem interested in learning about the Irish thing - here's a bit for you.

    The 2001 Census says 14% of Canadians have Irish roots. That's against 10.8% of Americans in 2000. Historically, the Irish in Canada had an even larger role - making up 24% of the population in 1867. In the 1800's the majority of Newfoundlanders spoke Irish, and it forms the basis for their own dialect today.

    Canada's "Ellis Island" was Grosse Isle, in the St Lawrence River. Funny, it's other name is the "Irish Memorial National Historic Site of Canada." I wonder why they named it that? Could be because of the 5,000 dead Irish buried there, victims of typhus, as they fled the Famine.

    That's probably enough for now. The Irish wish you a good night, Jack.


    by quinn esq on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 10:32pm

    Athiest sez:

    There's a lot I don't know about guns (it's not an important issue for me), but there's not much I don't know about statistics. It's part of what I do for a living.

    Jack replies:

    Well, you’re one up on me since the last course I took on it was 30 years ago.

    Athiest sez:

    Now you're creating the straw men that others have accused you of.

    Jack replies:

    That was no where near a strawman. That was pure snark. And I do know snark.


    Ahtiest sez:


    I wasn't disputing their facts, just stating that I was skeptical. Aren't you skeptical when you read information from sites that are biased against guns, even if they provide footnotes? I.e., would you just trust those footnotes, or would you follow them to see if they're legitimate? I'm being honest with you about what I know and what I don't know, and I ask the same from you.

    Jack replies:

    Since we are discussing those facts it would be nice if you glanced at them.

    Athiest sez:

    Did you really expect me to read the entire book? If you've read it, however, perhaps you could provide one of those cited footnotes.

    Jack replies:

    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995,


    Crime statistics: Bureau of Justice Statistics - National Crime Victimization Survey (2005). DGU
    statistics: Targeting Guns, Kleck (average of 15 major surveys where DGUs were reported)


    athiest sez:

    (A) It was something that rested on the previous erroneous fact, but (B) no, it most definitely wasn't the entire point of my post.

    It led to the major point of ~that~ post.

    Athiest sez:

    In case you missed it, let me say it again: my point is about relative risks, not absolute risks. Of course, in order to asses relative risks one needs to know something about absolute risks, but so far no one has provided any accurate information on either side of the equation, so we're both going on our guts. The difference is, I'm admitting it.

    Jack replies;

    I’ve given you documented info. It’s not my fault if you have not read it or responded in kind. (or unable to read the cite that you do give.) :)


    Athiest sez:

    I have been, several times. You don't seem to ackowledge them, however. The primary wrong statement you're making is conflating relative risks with absolute risks. Do you really think you don't make incorrect statements?

    Jack replies: Your opinion doesn’t count. But I’ll give you the stats thing.


    Athiest sez:

    Another one is where you state that you don't think 36,000 "nasty accidental things" happen with guns each year. I don't know much about guns, but that's obviously false.

    Jack replies: Got a cite for that? Of course not. Must be one of your “gut” ideas.

    Jack replies:

    Yet another one is where you suggest (granted, as an upper limit) that possibly several million lives are saved per year due to owning a gun, assuming that we're still in the same sample space and are referring to only American lives. That would mean that over the course of a typical human life, the majority of Americans would have had their life saved due to them or a family member owning a gun (unless you allow for the same life being saved multiple times, which still implies that the expected number of times my life will be saved by a gun is more than 1/2, if you understand the statistical meaning of expectation).

    I didn’t “suggest.” I reported what others studies have found. If you have problems with those studies I suggest you take it up with them. They are footnoted in the gunfacts book.


    Athiest sez:

    You must be definining accidental differently than I do. If you have an accident due to negligence, it's still an accident. Can you give me an example of an accident that isn't due to someone's negligence?

    Jack replies:

    The law is quite good at defining negligence differently from an accident. Negligence is picking up a gun and squeezing your finger on the trigger without thinking. Negligence is pointing a gun at someone “in fun” and pulling the trigger while thinking the gun is unloaded. Negligence is dropping the magazine without checking to see if a round is left in the chamber and shooting your five year old in the head.

    An accident is a sear that has worn down unknowingly and when the gun is bumped the gun discharges. An accident is when the deer catches the prong of his antler on the trigger and fires the gun. Accidents rarely happen – guns have been around for 500 years and virtually all the features that cause accidents have been engineered out of them. Negligence happens often because it is the result of human stupidity, lack of training, or lack of concern.

    Athiest sez:

    Less than "ONE ONE HUNDETH OF ONE PERCENT" constitutes rare in my book.

    Rare is relative. In comparison to the total number of guns it is rare. Yet I can point to three members of my family that have died by gunshots. Granted, that is over the course of 50 years but still, three members in one family.


    Athiest sez:

    Right, and I would argue that, overall, it's safer not to own a car. That's not to say it's better not to own a car, but it is safer, which is the point we're debating.

    Jack replies:

    And the facts point that the number of bad things that happen under gun owenrship are far outweighed by the number of good things that happen. Which makes it “safer.”


    by jack burton (not verified) on Tue, 09/07/2010 - 4:47pm

    I'll try to get back to you on this. I don't have time to read that right now, nor to hunt down the specific article you're referring to in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. (Do you have the article name? There are several different articles in that journal.)

    If I forget (and there's a non-trivial chance that I will), feel free to remind me.


    by Atheist (not verified) on Tue, 09/07/2010 - 5:04pm

    The vehement anti-gun contigent is just as irrational as the vehement anti-abortion contigent.  Guns exist.  Abortions happen.  Why do we persist in pursuing prohibitions as a solution to so many complex problems?  We know that doing so creates predictable consequences.  We can no longer pretend to think of them as unintended.

    This study from Harvard Law is one of the most comprehensive that I've come across as a source of comparative study on the issue.  The upshot is that a positive correlation is not observed between incidence of gun ownership and incidence of gun violence.  The correlation actually looks to run the other way, but to a very small degree.  You need correlation before you can go on to analyze causation, but that isn't found when a large number of countries is examined.  The bottom line is that far from being a cure for all gun violence, it isn't even clear that driving ownership close to zero does anything at all to alleviate gun violence.

    You can't eradicate guns any more than you can prevent all abortions.  And in both cases there are perfectly legitimate reasons for needing them as well as perfectly reasonable safeguards that might be exercised, but it's difficult to discuss those things when hysteria takes over.  It would be nice if people could just calm down about this stuff.


    by DF on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 4:21pm

    Part of the problem is that some people have grown up in a nearly gun-free cocoon, I know I did, where the only real firearms they see are in a policeman's holster. Their parents may have had guns, but kept them hidden away in safes or locked drawers. Other people, rural or recently rural, have grown up with guns as a normal part of life.

    The first group has tried to extend their gun-free cocoon throughout the country which played into the hands of people that wanted to disarm the urban minorities. The second group didn't even notice that, but as they fall out of the middle class and get forced into the cities, they don't want to suffer the same fate. They have taken the offensive to not only hold on to their guns, but to use them as a symbol to intimidate the opposition.

     


    by Donal on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 4:55pm

    Which is why it's also a losing issue for the left from a political standpoint.  There isn't good reason to believe that more draconion gun laws will actually increase public safety.  All it will do to empower them politically is to appease those who demand it.  At the same time, they'll be vindicating those who claim that all Democrats are out to take your guns away.


    by DF on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 6:36pm

    If the anti-gun contingent is a little noisy these days, DF, it may have something to do with the Supreme Court shooting down what they had considered "perfectly reasonable safeguards." Or as we say up here, "woefully inadequate ones."

    I don't have time just now to read a 40-page study, but thanks for the link. One little factoid. Since two major tightenings of our gun laws in the early 1990s, there has been a perceptible decline in the country's overall violent-crime rate. I'm not saying it's cause-and-effect. I'm just saying.


    by acanuck on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 5:19pm

    Don't get me wrong - there's hysteria on the pro-gun side as well.  And I don't think it's so clear cut as to what "perfectly reasonable safeguards" are.  I think that those might take one shape in a densely populated, urban area and a different shape in a sparsely populated, rural area (just as one example).  I also don't think that everyone is going to agree on exactly what those safeguards should be at all times, but I do think that the hysteria doesn't help the discussion.

    And it's totally easy to cherry pick examples like that.  Look at the Scandinavian countries.  They have very high levels of gun ownership, but very low levels of gun violence.  The only thing that clearly emerges when you look at a lot of different countries is that the two variables don't really correlate in any meaningful way.  It's the wrong tree to be barking up.


    by DF on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 6:19pm

    Took a fair scan of this one, DF... have to say, not convinced it's fabulously balanced. e.g. It starts by comparing the US to Russia and parts East, and even though one of the authors is Canadian, and it uses lots of Canadian-compiled data, there are no direct comparisons with Canada at all. I'm not saying there aren't lots of sensible things said in it, just that it read to me like a one-way piece.

    Anyhoo... It also seems to me that a better comparison might be between violence and abortion, with guns being one method/technique. If you constrain the use of guns, I have absolutely no doubt there;ll still be suicide and murders and accidental killings. But I also tend to think that there are reasons why the absolute numbers may fall.(Not guaranteed "will," but "may.") And more widely, I think there are wider cultural impacts which go along with having guns prevalent - political influences, wider social fears, shifts in military, and "entertainment," etc. I mean, there just IS a difference between killing up close, versus from a distance, in terms of efficacy, extent of fears, etc.

    And no good saying I'm hysterical, because it's already been determined that I'm testosterone-poisoned, and apparently, never the twain..... ;-)


    by quinn esq on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 6:05pm

    They're definitely making an argument in the context of law, which is about "ought" more than "is."  Even so, I think that the stance they take, namely that it must be incumbent upon those who claim that gun bans have the desired effect of decreasing violence to show evidence for that claim, is sound.  That this is the case must actually be demonstrated versus just claimed.  It's not even apparent that there's a clear correlation here, much less a causal relationship.

    It also makes it a lot easier to empower those who want to scare people with stories about "they want to take all your guns away" when you really do want to take all the guns away.

    Believe me - if I could choose to live in a world without guns versus a world with, I would choose the former in a second.  But we don't get that choice.  I only think it's hysterical to act as if we do.


    by DF on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 6:13pm

    Agreed that the connection must be shown, so let me be more blunt about the article - it struck me as dishonest. To start off with comparisons to the Eastern Bloc strikes me as a bit farcical. I mean, "Gee, what other factors might be in play here?" Whereas no references to Canada? Seriously?

    There were other aspects of the article which read the same way, including "In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents."

    None? Wow. Just.... NO evidence at all?

    And again, where explanations for shifts in crime over time that I'd heard seemed not to be mentioned - coke/crack explosion - while shifts in British gun crime and laws were explained away with arguments covering a centuries worth of data, a century during which so many other social forces were in play as to render the practical usefulness of the commentary almost zero. When it came time for quotes, they were from the Daily Mail and the Telegraph, horrifically right-wing papers. When it came to a timeline an explanation, it basically blamed gun control -with no mention of Thatcher's impacts, enormous growth in social inequalities, collapse of communities, etc.

    So YES, the connection needs to be proved or provided with evidence in support - but no, I don't think the article did it. At its simplest, I can see no reason to compare Soviet gun deaths with American ones, while skipping over Canada, in a review of international evidence.

    Your later comments strike as having to do with practical political decisions - and they might be right. Basically, they say that we shouldn't scare the pro-gun crowd and its spokespeople, and that it's an impossible dream. These are practical political judgments though, I would say.

    I mean, I believe it'll take a century's worth of effort to slowly shift American culture and politics toward a less violent path (same in Canada, but - as always - it'll just be done in a splashier manner in the States.) But to me - politically - this seems to me to one of the major challenges of the next generation anyway - bringing an Empire down from its former heights, without allowing its nutty tendencies and bitter individuals to run wild. And we have some experience of it in the West, having dealt with the British Empire, German, French, Spanish, Russian, Roman, etc.

    In particular, I wonder at places like Sweden and think of the Vikings and am amazed at that shift. That is, I think we DO get to choose (to some degree) the kind of world we live in... but perhaps not the speed of change. Maybe it'll take a century. that's no such a hysterical position, is it?


    by quinn esq on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 6:50pm

    The authors of the Harvard paper aren't out to prove the correlation.  They're looking for it because certain people insist that the correlation exists, can be established as causal in nature and that policy should therefore be based on it.  If the correlation is so solid, it should be apparent in the numbers, but it isn't.  The Eastern Bloc is no less relevant than Canada.  Russia in particular shows that you can have horrifyingly high incidence of gun violence with very low gun ownership.

    And my later comments to acanuck and Donal are about practical political concerns, but they become even more practical when there's little evidence that enacting these policies would even have the desired effect.  Of course, that makes it a double political loser and, therefore, completely irresistible to some Democrats.

    Cultures do change, but they as you've observed they tend to change slowly.  And it's not hysterical to hope that this moves in one direction and not the other.  What I think is hysterical is wanting to ban all guns right here and now just because someone thinks that will end all gun violence.  Or even reduce it.  It's not at all clear that's possible and it is clear that doing so would have consequences vis a vis the black market (which is really where you need to look to square the Russia figures).

    EDIT: I found the NAS study that they refer to here.  From the summary:

    For example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children’s behavior, knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs about firearms. The committee found that the data available on these questions are too weak to support unambiguous conclusions or strong policy statements.

     


    by DF on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 7:08pm

    Ok, I get why - in political terms - you want to step beyond this issue, and perhaps to focus on other things. (And since the last 20 years of my life have been ruled by the demands of practical politics, I really do mean that.)

    But let's just turn back to that dreadfully boring - yet, I think, really quite illuminating - issue, the US versus Canada. To a Canadian, saying that the Eastern Bloc is no less relevant than Canada just sounds... completely off the wall. Because there are 1001 variables which can come in and affect a policy like gun control. Religion, city structure, income levels and disparities, education, media, ethnicity, age structure, policing, on and on and on. But there is NO society, in the world, which is anywhere nearly as comparable to the US as is Canada. None. More interestingly, there are very few countries in the world which can be paired up and found to have such a degree of closeness. We ARE the best possible comparator for this issue, by far.

    And so, while my family slides back and forth across the border, for work and life, only a few issues - the areas where there are noticeable differences - are repeatedly discussed. Health Care. Attitudes toward the Military. Quality of the media. And Guns.

    So the practical point of the question comes down to this - If all those factors are so similar, and so much even of the historic experience is similar, then why, and how, has it come to be that gun-related murders (10:1) and murder rates (3:1) have diverged? Because this has happened in a relatively short period of history, i.e.100-200 years, max.

    Lastly... guess what the #1 legislative issue is, in Canada, today? Whether to abolish the Gun Registry. It's being driven by the Tories, who have a minority Parliament, and hope simple to split the other parties, rural from urban seats largely, but still... there tis.

    And indeed, my own present-day home - Manitoba - and place of roots - Nova Scotia - where the Lefty members are breaking with their leader to vote to abolish the Registry..... ;-)


    by quinn esq on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 7:56pm

    We ARE the best possible comparator for this issue, by far.

    That's only true if only the U.S. and Canada are relevant.  I don't happen to think that's the case.  The whole point of these studies is to determine whether certain kinds of legal frameworks have certain kinds of outcomes.  So, again, you can keep pointing to Canada versus the U.S., but that's a sample of two.  As the NAS study concludes, the data for this are beyond weak when actually confronted.


    by DF on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 8:34pm

    Sorry, didn't mean to say I thought ONLY Canada was relevant. Not at all. Absolutely, it's worth studying and comparing the Eastern Bloc, UK, historic examples, etc.

    I just felt it was odd - and perhaps misleading - to leave out the most obvious comparison.

    No offense to the Russians! ;-)


    by quinn esq on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 8:44pm

    P.S. And no, I'm not 100% convinced that gun control laws ARE what differentiates the two nations, nor that those are what is most needed. Just that... I very much suspect they're relevant and worth looking at.


    by quinn esq on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 8:45pm

    You might want to consider this before you choose to live in a world without guns...

    http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120501.shtml


    by jack burton (not verified) on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 10:01pm

    You might want to consider this before you alienate anyone else,

    From Cop in the Hood

    Anyway, a recent study shows that college makes cops less quick to use force.

    Rings true to me but I'm not sure why. Perhaps, if nothing else, college means you're older when you join the P.D. And that makes you wiser. But I also like to think that college and college class helps teach people how to talk respectfully to people you don't agree with. That's a good tool for a cop.

     

    That's a good tool for anyone.


    by Donal on Thu, 09/09/2010 - 5:53am

    This is actually a great source to bring into the discussion.  I just read this yesterday.  I find it interesting because it looks as a group that spends its time armed and regularly provoked to use a weapon.

    I also happen to believe that the best way to a less violent society is to have a more educated society with more economic opportunity and less economic inequality.  Maybe the answers lie not with more guns or less guns, but with giving people more productive, fulfilling things to do with their time.


    by DF on Thu, 09/09/2010 - 10:02am

    You seem to have misunderstood my comment.  When I said that I'd prefer to live in a world without guns, I meant that in the three wishes sense.  You must have missed the part where I expended all of that effort trying to show that there isn't a lot of good evidence that stringent gun control laws have the sought after outcome.


    by DF on Thu, 09/09/2010 - 9:58am