Comments on: Gun Control

By: job for writers

job for writers — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:34:40 +0000

The good storage of data just about this good topic men see, clicking the job for writers service.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 08:42:13 +0000

Burdcik:Glad to see you back!Check some of the data and get back to us.What is it that you want? All guns off the streets and out of our homes? You, as well as I, want to see gun violence reduced in the US. We differ in how to do that.This is where you start off on the wrong foot, and why I bad a negative reaction. Yes, as you say here, we all want to see gun violence (violence in general) reduced. I do not believe that violence is on the rise. Generally it is on the decline. You and I do not differ on how to do it, because by definition, I do not have a plan. You are reacting to me and my post on the basis of the assumption that I have a plan and you have some idea of what it is.The only thing I suggested was charging law enforcement experts make substantive, specific suggestions, and implementing those suggestions, rather than having elected officials do that. The argument, once again, is that elected officials are always going to be bought off by the NRA or totally anti gun (very few in between) so they are, as a political body, essentially incapable of coming up with a plan that would do anything effective.I point to the assault weapons ban. It does not matter if you are against of for banning anything. That law was stupid. It ended up, essentially, listing the equivalent of some model numbers. (I'm only slightly exaggerating, but I am oversimplifying). The assault weapons ban allows anti-gun constituents to believe that congress did something, and assault weapon collectors to still get assault weapons. I was an entirely political piece of legislation.You in turn must not tell me that I may not have a gun.I am not opposed to gun ownership.Regarding Vermont, I've been there. Nobody lives there. Vermont is not just a state, it is a cultural phenomenon. Having grown up a few miles from the border, I know something about it. Vermont does not have a low crime rate because the criminals assume everyone is carrying around a gun.What is the rate of handgun ownership and the rate of carrying handguns in Vermont, do you know?Your cherry picked arguments are the same ads the cherry picked arguments of the anti-gun side, in that they are cherry picked!

By: R. Burdcik

R. Burdcik — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 00:30:59 +0000

Well Greg, I am back. Pull me out of the spam jar! Yes, I was rude. I apologize. You’re glad I came back aren’t you?I have read all the posts so far and you do seem to have reasonable responses to those who posted, except for me.Many have given you sources for you to check the accuracy of our statements. Check some of the data and get back to us.What is it that you want? All guns off the streets and out of our homes? You, as well as I, want to see gun violence reduced in the US. We differ in how to do that. As concealed carry laws continue to spread across the country, I believe you will see crime such as assaults and armed robberies continue to drop as criminals “learn” that many of their intended victims are armed. Some rather innocuous looking old man pulls a gun to defend himself and his wife against a vicious attack. If the criminal survives the encounter, he “learns”. Criminals will then turn to property crime, making sure the occupants are not home. I do not have stats but I have read that most crime is perpetrated by a rather small number of individuals. I have found that to be true in my area. Put them away for a long time, instead of plea-bargaining to a much lesser charge because its easier. I also support more tax dollars for police, prisons, judges, and prosecutors. Heck, I even donate to “Shop-with-a-Cop”.I do not tell you that you must have a gun. You in turn must not tell me that I may not have a gun. You can vote though, and I can vote also. I may be on the losing end of that one. I’m sure you notice that Hillary and Obama are not talking gun control at all. We both know exactly where they stand. Waterboard me, whatever, I will never vote for either.I am responsible for the safety of my family. I do not take that lightly. People who are unable to defend themselves or their family do have the police. I am a huge supporter of the police, but I am the first line of defense.Let’s look at some other stats:Are you aware that Vermont does not require a person to have a permit to carry a concealed handgun?Hear are some statistics for the year 2006:HOMICIDEThe Weapon/Force UsedAssault – Hands/Fists 3Blunt Object 1Firearm 5Knife 2Drowned 1TOTAL 12(From Vermont Department of Public Safety)This is for a whole state, for the whole year. The average for the years 1997 through 2006 is 11.6 per year.Vermont has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the country, particularly their concealed carry laws. Vermont is rated 9 out of 100 in the Brady State Gun Laws Scorecard.I suggest you compare the Brady Scorecard rank with each states homicide rate. You will find a link here: http://www.bradycampaign.org/This is from the Brady site for Vermont:LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION MAGAZINESAre there limitations on large capacity ammunition magazines? NoVermont – There is no state law restricting the sale or possession of large capacity ammunition magazines that can fire 30, 50 or even 75 rounds without reloading. Ammunition magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition are considered large capacity magazines. These types of ammunition magazines are available for any firearm capable of accepting a detachable magazine, including assault weapons and semi-automatic handguns.One would assume that state would be blood from one side to the other, right? It makes for good reading. Check it out. What is Vermont doing that is different than other states? I don’t know, but they do acknowledge a citizen’s rights to bear arms. I, for one, like that idea.Good luck Greg, stay safe. I know I will.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:17:34 +0000

In the sense you are talking about, guns laws are not like other laws. Under settled case law, the police, even if they know with 100% certainty that a person will be murdered, are under no obligation to protect that person. The only person responsible for the target’s safety is the target himself/herself. This is where the argument, that if handguns are outlawed, only crimimals will have guns, comes into play. Since police are not required to protect individuals, it seems irrational to take away a method of personal protection.This argument does not hinge on the 2nd Amendment as that amendment only protects weapons of war that a foot soldier would carry into battle. A handgun may or may not be included. Rather, the 9th Amendment is what protects this right of self defense.

By: the real cmf

the real cmf — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:18:39 +0000

Yeah, sure, Antarctica is a great idea–but I wouldn’t need the right to keep and bear arms there because there are no polar bears.At the other pole however, a .40 cal goes a long way, and a fifty even further, if its me or the bear. Maybe I could use a small crossbow for the occasional overprotective group of egg nesting emperor penguins there in the south,right? Or protection from prowling leopard seals–but maybe I could outrun them, being as they are not as fast as cheetah seals?The real solution seems to me to be that old saw ‘democracy in action’. You gave me a fright when you a) said that raw political process doesn’t work (electoral college, fear of the tyranny of the masses, etc) and 2) put your trust completely in law enforcement.Jeffries gives a few interesting links up there for how those alternative statistic gathering bodies are hard at work, and maybe the academia can come up with something of its own, other than leftist fearmongering/police state building rhetoric. Ask the gun owners, investigate the reality of gun owners who are not police, or the one or two Klan members left in the country(often the same two guys).The idea of gun ownership is not as simple as it has been portrayed by academic leftists who use propaganda like James Ridgeway et al as their basis in fact, and handguns in general diffuse the real issue, which is citizens rights of some form of equivalence with government.Its a framing problem. As of now,it is framed in two big squares: square A is full of Bush lovin’ internastional police action Cops and jew baitin’ Klansmen and NRA militia types.Square B is full of UN lovin’ internationalists bent on taking away guns so that their international communist cronies can sweep in and Stalinize all of ‘us’, and put our wimins on welfare (which is waaAAyy worse than Euthanising ‘us’).So the obvious solution seems to me to look harder at what and who is the the essential middle ground: the hunter, the soldier (which, by the way is a stacked deck right now) and the people of Washington D.C. who will now buy a gun–this last category will have some great stories I assure you, and better reasons to own a gun than most.Revise the out dated paradigms, stereotypes,and disinformational soundbytes, and make new ones, even though it is almost impossible in academic circles to do that, it being filled as it is with dogma.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:06:00 +0000

Mike:Let me be very clear about what I mean. I’m referring specifically to the argument that since criminals can get hand guns that regulation of hand guns is not appropriate.There will always be subgroups of people who can get away with a particular illegal activity. The argument that I object to is that this reality simply obviates any attempt at law or regulation.

By: tjeffries

tjeffries — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:40:44 +0000

Greg, I wouldn’t go so far as to say you were full of anything, but more likely misinformed like a lot of others who have been spoon-fed misleading information by the media for years. If you want a real eye-opener, go to Sarah Brady’s group for their facts, then go to the FBI or CDC’s website and try to verify them,,,,Won’t Happen in either of our lifetimes, but guess who gets quoted as fact while the NRA gets chastised for lies,,,,,,,Find One.You’ve been more than respectful so far, and I can even handle a little but of grumpy to a point, but not being a spring chicken myself, I’d appreciate it if you’d reciprocate LOL. There’s nothing I can post here that wouldn’t require at least a bit of work on your part, so I’ll post a few links and answer any questions the rest of the guys don’t beat me to. Your education appears to already be in good hands without me LOL.If you have access to a good library, the book “More Guns Less Crime” by John Lott should be required reading by everyone who claims to be an American today. Lott researches crime and laws in EVERY county in the US for his research base, sorta hard to beat that for being thorough.The second, “Gun Facts Version 4.2 is available online: http://gunfacts.info/I already posted Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership’s website: http://www.jpfo.org/ which will show video evidence as to why most of us don’t trust the BATFE or anyone else for that matter with our Second Amendment rights in their newest production “The Gang” and previously produced “Innocents Betrayed” documenting how many disarmed victims died at the hands of their own government in the last century.Keep and Bear Arms: http://keepandbeararms.com/news/nl/disp.asp?d=11/2/2007 which should be required viewing at least monthly.Second Amendment Foundation: http://www.saf.org/That's way more than you’ll have time to digest, but to us who take our Constitution seriously, all our rights are sacred, and we have to work overtime on the Second Amendment to make up for those who have no problem abusing their First Amendment rights in order to dismiss it because they fail to take the time to understand it.If you made it this far Greg, thanks for your time, and if you don’t understand anything here, please feel free to ask.[ADDED: Your comment was thrown in the dungeon due to the links (that is standard procedure for some reason). But I hereby liberate it … gtl]

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:07:35 +0000

I do not see why you think that guns laws are treated differently than other laws. Just like laws that restrict freedom are speech are ultimately decided by the Supreme Court, so should laws which restrict the right to bear arms. The DC handgun ban is going to be heard by the Supreme Court this year.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:47:33 +0000

Dave:I’m not sure there is a trend to worry about. Most likely, gun violence is decreasing. (I hadn’t said anything at all about a trend, though assuming I was thinking trend is quite forgivable since most of the arm waving about crime involves that premise, often false).But again, why do we want to treat laws and regulations regarding guns in a way that is utterly different than everything else we do in this society?(See what I mean?)

By: dave X

dave X — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:37:52 +0000

Well, taking a page from (the evil) Bjorn Lomborg, are you sure there is an increasing trend to worry about, and that the possible solutions are worth more than equally costly improvements in other areas?