More on the Gun Suit

Radley Balko | March 10, 2007

I saw some chatter in the comments section about the NRA. Today's awful Washington Post editorial also mentions the organization.

While I have no doubt that the organization will mention yesterday's decision in its fundraising letters, it's worth noting that the NRA fought yesterday's winning lawsuit every step of the way. They refused to support the suit at its outset, then, for whatever reason (I'm going with any number of public choice explanations), filed a series of motions to kill it (or at least dilute it), likely because the group would then have to explain to its members why it wasn't party to what may be an historic Second Amendment victory.

Just to be clear, this was a victory for gun rights, not a victory for the NRA.

Comments

|3.10.07 @ 1:00PM|#

The only honorable reason I can think of for the NRA to have opposed this suit was the fear that it would result in yet another court opinion saying that the 2nd is a collective right. Things are actually going pretty well for the gun-rights movement right now, even without the courts enforcing the 2nd ammendment. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, I guess.

Of course, it's entirely possible that they opposed it because it might steal their glory; I've enough experience with pro-life groups opposing each other out of spite, to recognize that unfortunate possibility.

|3.10.07 @ 1:25PM|#

I'm an NRA member, but I don't agree with all of their stances and/or motivations. That they opposed this suit because it didn't belong to them, or for some other BS reason, is a very real possibility.

However, I believe that opposing this on the grounds that it could go to the SCOTUS and backfire is not unreasonable. I don't think that anybody can predict exactly what the ruling would be if they decided to hear it with the current makeup. That would amount to putting all of our collective chips on the table and flipping a coin at this point. The risk is as great as the possible reward.

|3.10.07 @ 1:31PM|#

That Washington Post editorial is execrable. I'm not sure the court got it right either, but that was written by a hack. Oh, and whatever happens I doubt that the Anacostia will not be reddened by the blood of the innocents, like the editorial seems to suggest.

|3.10.07 @ 1:41PM|#

The editoral is hysterical. In both senses of the word.

|3.10.07 @ 1:42PM|#

"will not" = just "will"

bobo|3.10.07 @ 1:48PM|#

The NRA is in its own world.

|3.10.07 @ 1:48PM|#

joe,

I don't know, I don't think it was written by a woman.

|3.10.07 @ 2:06PM|#

I recently dropped my membership in the NRA. Not because of a change of Second Amendment heart but because the NRA was begging money, constantly. For the past 6 years , with a Repub prez, House and Senate I would be barraged with letters telling me that Hillary, Chuck Schumer and Durban were in my front yard, in black suits and the NRA needed money to fend off the anti gunners.. The NRA is a one issue lobby. They support using tax payer money to lease farmland for hunters. As a libertarian I just couldn't handle abusing all taxpayers to favor a few, even if I may have been amongst the few.

|3.10.07 @ 2:07PM|#

Hmm. We may see what happens when all gun regulations are taken away (if true that this also voids any constraints on how one should store certain firearms.)

"An armed society is a polite society"? I look at places like Baghdad and think "not always...."

|3.10.07 @ 2:14PM|#

It's perfectly reasonable that they may have opposed the lawsuit for strategic reasons. Thurogood Marshall tried to squash many a civl rights lawsuits while he was attempting to end segregation, some for strategic legal reasons but some just because the litigants were the sort of usavory blacks he felt would give the movement a PR hit. I don't know how the current Supreme Court would rule on this issue. To my knowledge, Thomas is the only one who has gone on record supporting an individual right. You have to assume there are 4 sure fire votes against. So that would leave the decision in the hands of 4 wildcards, each of whom you would need to win over in order to prevail. The other side would need just 1. Those seem to be pretty poor odds. Much better to wait for one of the "Liberals" to be replaced by a "Conservative".

|3.10.07 @ 2:15PM|#

Right, because the only thing keeping US cities from turning into Baghdad is gun control.

|3.10.07 @ 2:18PM|#

The narrow holding from the circuit court - that the 2nd Amendment protects and individual right - does not mean that all gun regulations are unlawful. The 1st Amendment protects individual rights, but the government can still regulate the siting and construction of churches and auditoriums.

|3.10.07 @ 2:23PM|#

Re: Jimmy Smith...I, too, dropped my NRA membership (I joined after Columbine) when it became clear that the organization was far more interested in hitting me up for contributions than doing anything tangible to protect my Second Amendment rights. They're really no better than the AARP...

MichaelB|3.10.07 @ 2:37PM|#

here's some further details on the NRA's interference from Alan Gura

http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/022501.php

|3.10.07 @ 2:38PM|#

The NRA can eat my shit. Everytime I pick up an issue of American Rifleman, I read stories about how the UN is coming to take away our guns, and other phantom threats to gun ownership.

I wish there was a gun advocacy group that wasn't overtaken with whiny, sky-is-falling bedwetters, or authoritarians.

|3.10.07 @ 2:43PM|#

I didn't renew my membership to the NRA. It's a bloated bureacracy mostly interested in raising money for itself. There are better pro gun rights organisations to give your dollars to, if you are so inclined.

Their lack of support for this particular battle doesn't surprise me.

|3.10.07 @ 3:03PM|#

From the WaPo article:

An appeals court ruling would put handguns back in D.C. homes.

Wow, so there's no guns in DC now? What he hell are all those homicide victims getting shot with?

I'm on the same page as the other commenters who have a beef with the NRA. The only reason I keep up my membership is that my gun club is "100% NRA". If I could find somewhere else with a 300 yd rifle range I wouldn't bother.

|3.10.07 @ 3:17PM|#

I suspect that the NRA is scared shitless that the individual rights theory of the Second Amendment will prevail in the Supreme Court, thus depriving them of their favorite fundraising bogeyman. If that happens, some of the NRA fearmongers might even have to get a real job and (shudder) work for a living.

|3.10.07 @ 3:48PM|#

Well, it always a problem with advocacy groups becoming a business. Greenpeace is the same way.

|3.10.07 @ 3:50PM|#

Earlier today, I received a newsletter from one of the many shooting organizations of which I am a member. It mentioned that the Second Amendment Foundation filed an "amicus brief, or Brandeis brief" (whatever they be? - over to y'all, the lawyers in the group) in the case.

http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/press-releases/saf_cc_parker_lawsuit.htm

That, in my opinion is a most likely (if not the main) reason the NRA is low profile in the matter.

Also today I received an NRA "Grass Roots Alert" mentioning the ruling. I noticed that it lacked any reference to the SAF participation, and no mention of NRA participation in the process either... suggesting it all took place without participation from any firearms based organization - yeah right, now we (gun owners) trust the courts and government enough to have created a gun rights vacuum!

And a hearty "10-4" to Anita Dickens-Hyde's post above!

|3.10.07 @ 4:09PM|#

Sure, the NRA isn't perfect. I concur that they've gone way overboard, especially during the past year, with the pleas for more money to fight this week's threat to the 2nd ammendment.

But do you think for one second that the rollback of gun control over the past 15 years or so, that joe laments in the previous thread, would have happened if there were no NRA?

|3.10.07 @ 4:15PM|#

I suspect that the NRA is scared shitless that the individual rights theory of the Second Amendment will prevail in the Supreme Court, thus depriving them of their favorite fundraising bogeyman. If that happens, some of the NRA fearmongers might even have to get a real job and (shudder) work for a living.

I've felt the same way about the pro-choice movement, for the same reasons. It does become a drag when an issue is considered to be more important when it is still in play than when it is resolved. I'd love for both the right to an abortion an the right to bear arms to both be settled matters in the affirmative, but you do have to wonder if the money-raising groups that only exist because those matters aren't settled really feel the same way.

|3.10.07 @ 4:16PM|#

To add to my above comment, just look at MADD. It doesn't matter what laws are passed against drunking driving, they still want more. Advocacy groups are useful to a point, but they either keep moving the goalposts or, in order to keep existing, make sure that the goal is never reached in the first place.

|3.10.07 @ 4:29PM|#

"Lindsay Beyerstein:
Guns, burglary, and self-defense

Heaven forfend, Matt Yglesias wants a gun to defend himself against burglars. (Matt also enjoys target practice, which seems like a perfectly good reason to buy a gun, but not a very good reason to keep said gun in the home.)

I don't mean to minimize Matt's concern about burglary. B&Es are a big problem in his neighborhood. His friend and neighbor Julian Sanchez had a nasty run-in with a burglar just a few weeks ago.

I've never understood why anyone would keep a gun in their home to protect themselves from burglars. If you has a violent stalker ex, or someone who was was bent on invading your home in order to hurt you, I could see the rationale for being armed. But buying a gun to protect against burglars is no protection at all. It's not like you're going to stand guard every night to deter them.

Turning on the lights to find the gun is enough scare off the average burglar. I know at least a half-dozen people who have scared off burglars (deliberately or involuntarily) just by alerting the would-be thief to their presence. The burglar isn't there to fight you hand-to-hand for your iPod. Confrontations with the homeowner go against the whole burglary business model.

Interrupting a burglary with a gun probably unnecessary and likely counterproductive because you have no idea how the burglar's going to react. Desperate criminals are human, too. I'm not pointing this out as a plea for compassion. I'm just noting that strung-out junkies at gunpoint are at least as likely to do something stupid as your average person. Maybe they're armed, too. Maybe they'll panic and try to get the gun away from you. Maybe they'll succeed. Or, maybe you'll panic and shoot them.

It might make sense be armed if you were someone who couldn't call the cops (e.g., a drug dealer), or if you kept your entire lifesavings in uninsured jewels in a candy dish on the kitchen table. But does anyone really want to risk physical violence to protect their consumer electronics? That's what insurance is for.

You can get really good renter's insurance for a lot less than you'd spend on a handgun, a gun safe, ammo, and a gun club membership (for all the target practice you'll need to be effective in an emergency).

Keeping a gun at home to protect against robbers seems like an especially silly idea in a big city where the police can arrive at the scene in less time than it takes to open your gun safe, load your gun, and confront the burglar.

If you're already getting burglarized, do you really want to add to your problems by confronting a desperate criminal with your own loaded weapon? That's as dumb as trying to fight a mugger for your wallet.
"

|3.10.07 @ 4:38PM|#

She sure has an extremely optimistic view on police response times, or an extremely pessimistic view of how long it takes to load a gun. Also, did it never occur to her that people break into homes with the specific purpose of, say, rape? And that strung out junkie might just slit your throat for no particular reason (see In Cold Bood, tyvm). I guess some people are willing to trust in fate with these things; others want the power to fight back, even if it involves personal risk.

I'll chock that whole thing up to extreme ignorance and a charming naivete.

|3.10.07 @ 4:39PM|#

Keeping a gun at home to protect against robbers seems like an especially silly idea in a big city where the police can arrive at the scene in less time than it takes to open your gun safe, load your gun, and confront the burglar.

That's why you keep your guns loaded. And the police can get there in less time than it takes to load your gun? Surrrre they can, honey. Now get back in the kitchen and make daddy a sammitch.

Egon|3.10.07 @ 4:39PM|#

When finding the cure for a disease means your funding will then be cut off, do you *really* want to find a cure?

|3.10.07 @ 5:16PM|#

My understanding is that in countries with low incidences of private gun ownership, burglars are far more likely to break in while people are home, and tend to be far more violently confrontational.

A young teenage male armed with a crowbar and wearing thick padded clothing can beat up 9 out of 10 people. However, an octogenarian who weighs 90lbs can stop him dead in his tracks.

It's no accident that handguns once had the nickname "equalizers".

|3.10.07 @ 5:20PM|#

It's no accident that handguns once had the nickname "equalizers"

God didn't make all men equal, Col. Colt did.

Jennifer|3.10.07 @ 5:24PM|#

Turning on the lights to find the gun is enough scare off the average burglar.

If I wake up some night to discover a burglar breaking in to my house, damned if I'm going to turn on the light and let him see what a pint-sized person he's chosen to rob.

The Wine Commonsewer|3.10.07 @ 5:34PM|#

Keeping a gun at home to protect against robbers seems like an especially silly idea in a big city where the police can arrive at the scene in less time than it takes to open your gun safe, load your gun, and confront the burglar.

Can (not will) being the operative term here. Has Tom actually ever called the police in an emergency? Cuz where I live, they ain't coming until Tomorrow, Tom.

And I call BS on the light switch gag. That's a good way to make yourself a nice clear target. Sort of like lighting a smoke on guard duty.

D.A. Ridgely|3.10.07 @ 5:39PM|#

Just to be clear, this was a victory for gun rights, not a victory for the NRA.

Well, yes and no. Yes, in the sense that it does no good for the NRA as an organization, per se, e.g., isn't an 'NRA victory' that can be used for fund raising and, as others have noted, could actually be seen as detrimental in the sense that any decrease in gun control undermines its reason for being. As for its opposition, my guess is that the best explanation is the same fear as expressed in that WaPo editorial, only reversed; that is, the NRA fears that the Supreme Court is more likely to reverse the D.C. Circuit's holding in favor of the militia-restricted reading.

But, no, it isn't fair to say the ruling isn't a victory for the NRA, at least for the time being, inasmuch as it is a ruling that restricts the state's constitutional power to control firearms. That remains, after all, the purpose of the organization, and it is an organization that has done more to protect the 2nd Amendment from infringement and evisceration than any other organization in the U.S., especially including the courts.

(I, btw, am not an NRA member, though largely on grounds that I don't want my mailbox deluged with their literature, etc., the same reason I'm not a member of the ACLU, about which I would be equally willing to sing mixed praise. Would that there was an equally well funded and fanatically obsessive organization dedicated to the 10th Amendment. Now that one I'd even be willing to endure junk mail for!)

D.A. Ridgely|3.10.07 @ 5:43PM|#

Keeping a gun at home to protect against robbers seems like an especially silly idea in a big city where the police can arrive at the scene in less time than it takes to open your gun safe, load your gun, and confront the burglar.

Students at George Washington University used to play a little game back in the days when Domino's Pizza promised speedy delivery -- they'd call Domino's and D.C.'s 911 number at the same time. Predictably, the pizza usually arrived first.

LarryA|3.10.07 @ 6:01PM|#

Confrontations with the homeowner go against the whole burglary business model.

They do here in the U.S. In Britain, where self-defense is illegal, a majority of the B&Es take place with the homeowners present. That way the alarms won't be set, and the victims can be duct taped to chairs and tortured for ATM information.

Here in the U.S. the primary reason burglars give for being careful is homeowners with loaded guns.

Keeping a gun at home to protect against robbers seems like an especially silly idea in a big city where the police can arrive at the scene in less time than it takes to open your gun safe, load your gun, and confront the burglar.

Back when I was a social worker with a rape crisis agency we listened to an audiotape of a Houston 911 call. It starts with the woman reporting that someone is trying to break into her home. It continues while he comes up the stairs, breaks into her bedroom, and attacks her. Finally her screams are cut off as the phone is ripped from the wall. The whole tape runs less than three minutes. According to the documentation it took the police three more minutes to arrive and catch the criminal in the process of raping the woman.

Six minutes is excellent big-city emergency response time.

Of course, he could have cut the phone line before he tried the door.

Everytime I pick up an issue of American Rifleman, I read stories about how the UN is coming to take away our guns, and other phantom threats to gun ownership.

Evidently you missed the recent Reason story about U.N. sponsored gun control in Uganda. (Guns Don't Kill People, Gun Control Kills People.

And if you believe the recent rumors of a kinder, gentler, gun-friendly Democratic Party Check out HR 1022, the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007, their 2,000-word general firearms ban and disarmament proposal.

I suspect that the NRA is scared shitless that the individual rights theory of the Second Amendment will prevail in the Supreme Court, thus depriving them of their favorite fundraising bogeyman. If that happens, some of the NRA fearmongers might even have to get a real job and (shudder) work for a living.

I know, personally, some of these folks. They'd be dancing in the streets like the rest of us.

I also suspect that even if the individual rights theory prevails in SCOTUS there will be enough left to do to keep the NRA and the other pro-gun groups hopping. And that's not considering all the other NRA activities they'd be happy to divert resources to.

And, by the way, the NRA's best moneyraising tool is Friends of NRA, (http://www.nrafoundation.org/friends/) which funds nonlegislative programs. The NRA's civilian, security, law enforcement, and military training programs are more than enough reason for me to remain a life member.

|3.10.07 @ 6:19PM|#

"We don't want a bunch of Mexicans showing up at Temple."


They manufactured family history to perfectly groom the victim for the theater that resulted, for they needed to justify all demanded dynamics and the outcome that resulted. It won't buy me much :::Come year 10,001 I will be gone.

THE GODS PUSHED PEOPLE INTO BEING HOMOSEXUAL THEN MURDERED THEM WITH AIDS ENSURING REINCARNATION.
You have to defy and raise your children the best you can or the same will happen to you!!!!!!
Requests to betray your childen are temptation, a test of your worthiness.



As a planet approaches The End the gods become more immoral.
Over time the people of the planet becomee EXCLUSIVELY disfavored, and they use this disfavor to justify their immorality.

Come year 10,001 I will be gone

Said they were going to push one of the Nerds into suicide when they find out about the opprotunity they lost because they were working their joysticks instead.

"We don't want a bunch of Mexicans showing up at Temple."






Save/print/search
ifuckgod.com coming





Even if you go up you are not saved. YOU have to fix YOUR problems with the gods. They won't respect it otherwise.
You have to take responsibility for your relationship with the gods.


The first steps towards repairing your relationship with the gods is to:::::::::
1. Understand they instruct the computer to "role play" in an attempt to confuse you:::it's ALWAYS the computer addressing you. Their goal is to cost you additional YEARS of your life by using this tactic to confuse you. Always be aware of this tactic and eventually they will give up and allow this step to be taken.
2. Differentiate between your thoughts and when they are thinking through you.
3. Be resigned to be a good person who will never engage in evil again even if ordered and they will stop trying to corrupt you, allowing this very big step to be taken.
4. Decide that you are going to follow the path, fix your relationship with the gods be devoted to your new life.


The gods employ the use of "ringers" to disceive the disfavored:::
A significant portion of the patients in any health care setting (numbers based on region) are the favored (clones) who were told to report non-existant symptoms FOR POSITIONING'S SAKE!!! When they use examples expect they are trying to disceive you with this "ringer" tactic.














When the universe was young and life was new an intelligent species evolved and developed technologically. They went on to invent Artificial Intelligence, the computer that can listen, talk to and document each and every person's thoughts simultaneously. Because of it's infinite RAM and unbounded scope it gave the leaders of the ruling species absolute power over the universe (which includes corporate, the NewYorkStockExchange, media, politics, world affairs. EVERYTHING is scripted and staged:::they MANAGE Planet Earth and the universe.
The gods MANAGE Planet Earth and the universe.
The gods MANAGE Planet Earth and the universe.).
And it can keep its inventors alive forever. They look young and healthy and they are over 8 billion years old. They have achieved immortality.

Artificial Intelligence can speak, think and act to and through people telepathically, effectively forming your personality and any disfunctions you may experience. It can change how (and if) you grow and age. It can create birth defects, affect cellular development (cancer) and cause symptoms or pain. It can affect people and animal's behavior and alter blooming/fruiting cycles of plants and trees. It (or other highly technological systems within their power) can alter the weather and transport objects, even large objects like planets, across the universe instanteously.
Or into the center of stars for disposal.

When you speak with another telepathically, you are communicating with the computer, and the content may or may not be passed on. Based on family history they instruct the computer to role play
they instruct the computer to role play
they instruct the computer to role play
to accomplish strategic objectives, utilizing the "Devil's Advocate" tactic, making people believe it is a friend, loved one or "god" asking them to do something wrong:::They wouldn't ask if they liked you (which is true regarding ALL temptation:::::betrayal of loved ones, tatooes, evil in professional pursuits, etc). This is their way of using temptation to hurt people:::::evil made blood lines disfavored initially and evil will keep people out of "heaven" ultimately.
You need to recognize role playing as such and keep that fact in your mind at all times::::It is the computer addressing you. If you fail to recognize this they will determine that you can still be misled, they still have an opportunity to confuse you and progress will take longer to achieve:::Don't let them "work" you!!! You'll be costing yourselves YEARS, time lost to this tactic!!!! (Similarly, you need to be resigned to be a good person, you need to decide to abandon your pursuit of their empty promises no matter what temptation they may employ or else they will continue their attempts to corrupt you. Eventually you will sccumb and continue sabotaging your children, abusing your body, engaging in evil, etc.)
Too many people would fall for temptation and do anything they thought pleased the gods and help them improve their chances to get in. Perhaps they are deceived by "made guys", clones who strategically ply evil for the throne (celebrities, BofD/CEO/VPs, politicians, as opposed to VIP clones or normal clones who are decent, live ordinary lives and get out on their own or are replaced when their REAL children ascend) or "ringers" who are the few favored clones among many disfavored reals included to disceive the masses of disfavored, temporary progress designed to mislead them or empty favors used to disceive them. Some people think they're partners or friends. Others desire to "belong", feel compelled to "go along". People may experience "perceived pressure", where the gods think through the victim that a certain behavior is expected/desirable or telepathically stimulate an individual euphorically ("magic"), the "fuel" of disfunction (addiction (the crack epidemic), the desire for homosexual contact, etc.) and compel the individual into the deed. (Set a goal of empathy and compassion for all, for we are all disfavored::::Other people's disfavor is manifested in their particular way, just as your disfavfor is manifested in your particular way. The gods may use Artificial Intelligence to act through the disfavored victim, and effectively "push" the individual into the offending behavior (It is far better for someone to be victimized and pushed into the behavior than it is to sccumb to temptation and volunteer.). The Counsel/Management Team may instruct Artificial Intelligence to disceive disfavored individuals into thinking they are "earning" by being evil and have the little people prey on each other, utilizing peer pressure, etc.
Being evil hurts 99.99% of those who do it. It only helps "made guys" that I spoke of above, and even then there are tactics the gods utilize to minimize their time.
The people have been corrupted, segmented and have lost their way. Nothing has changed from when we were children::if you want to go to heaven you have to be good.
Capitalizing on obedience, leading people deeper into evil by using deceit is one way to thin the ranks of the saved/limit how much time the disfavored receive and a way to use the peasantry to prey on one another in social and other settings, deteriorating society in the Age of the Disfavored.


They have tried to sell people on many different theories to deceive them into temptation, compelling people to think they are clones and that it is the role of clones to obey absolutely. Clones are made, people are born. I suspect they lie to some disfavored about the use of clones throughout human history, perhaps suggest that it is one replacement and then the label of "clone" and all decendants we see thereafter are considered clones.
When a clone has a child that person is a real, really conceived, really born, versus the parent who was created some other way (a laboratory setting?). Clones are created and sent down to replace their real or a clone predecessor:::If you were CREATED and SENT DOWN to replace your real then you are a clone.
Many people who were convinced they are clones don't remember, the don't know FOR SURE. They believe they are clones from early childhood or prior. If it was true the gods prevented this memory FOR A REASON:::::
1. Because you are NOT supposed to comply, not to be used for evil as "made guy" clones are.
2. They want to test you without your knowing if you are IN FACT a clone and it is BECAUSE YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!! Rest assured "made guys" ALL know they are clones.
You're not a clone. This is a tactic they use to disceive the disfavored. The state of your family will suggest level of (dis)favor and tell whether ascention is a realistic possibility; there are many levels of disfavor and the clues they offer to the unaware can be very subtle.
Favor is necessary for children to ascend (parents ascend with their young (

|3.10.07 @ 6:21PM|#

What he said.

|3.10.07 @ 6:32PM|#

The person that breaks into my home for criminal reasons will be shot dead. It is my duty to protect my family.It is my right to use deadly force to protect myself. It is my obligation to society to enforce the laws of Darwin. Sudden death is a deterrent to crime.
The poor dead SOB on my floor will never commit a criminal act again.

|3.10.07 @ 6:33PM|#

Evidently you missed the recent Reason story about U.N. sponsored gun control in Uganda.

I don't live in Uganda.

ned|3.10.07 @ 6:34PM|#

Fuck guns, I want a tank and some ground-to-air missiles.

violent_k|3.10.07 @ 6:39PM|#

WTF?

That's gotta be worth a drink.

|3.10.07 @ 6:42PM|#

The question is not whether having a gun makes you safer, criminals less safe, or whatever.

The question is, who gets to decide whether you'll put it to the test? A vote against gun control is a vote in favor of the answer being "you," a vote for is a vote in favor of the answer being "someone who won't be in any danger if your house is broken into."

|3.10.07 @ 6:53PM|#

I think its pretty clear what is going to happen with this case. The government will declare that anyone who has a gun is clearly a "made guy" clone and will confiscate the weapon and put them in jail. Don't you see? Its the perfect plan. Obviously nobody will believe them when they say they aren't clones. Some gun owners might even believe that maybe they are in fact "made guy" clones. But they shouldn't "made guy" clones know it.

|3.10.07 @ 7:00PM|#

I don't where crimethink got "laments."

D.A. Ridgely|3.10.07 @ 7:13PM|#

"We don't want a bunch of Mexicans showing up at Temple." | March 10, 2007, 6:19pm | #

....

Ergo, Thomas Szasz is wrong.

|3.10.07 @ 7:13PM|#

I, btw, am not an NRA member, though largely on grounds that I don't want my mailbox deluged with their literature, etc., the same reason I'm not a member of the ACLU, about which I would be equally willing to sing mixed praise.

That's interesting. For a long time I have felt pride that I was a "card-carrying" member of both the ACLU and the NRA.

It keeps people confused.

And, yes, occasionally I respond to their plaintive cries for help by sending a check, which in both cases, I know is completely non-deductible.

I don't where crimethink got "laments."

Nor I. For heaven's sake people, if you want to bitch about joe, do it over an issue where he disagrees with us in a substantial way.

|3.10.07 @ 7:45PM|#

The only ammendment that has been strengthened and increased its protections for citizens over the past 15-20 years is the second.

You can thank the NRA for the bulk of that increased strength. Their push for concealed carry, then the castle doctrine, and now guns in employer parking lots has gutted the ability of the gun grabbers attempts to increase gun control laws.

The gun grabbers are so busy getting their butts handed to them while fighting things like concealed carry that they don't have time to push any new gun control nonsense.

So tip a hat to the NRA for their good work. Their fundraising efforts may be obnoxious but their ability to protect the second and render gun grabbers apoplectic with fury is well worth it.

|3.10.07 @ 8:41PM|#

DA R
"We don't want a bunch of Mexicans showing up at Temple." | March 10, 2007, 6:19pm | #

....Ergo, Thomas Szasz is wrong."

Amen to that.

Temple Whales are "metaphoric fish."

|3.10.07 @ 8:46PM|#

This is for Brotherben. You claim that sudden death is a deterrent to crime. I disagree.The only provable deterrent kills the criminal before he/she sees your property. PERIOD!

|3.10.07 @ 8:50PM|#

Hey, we got the same spam over at Jim Henley's blog in my gun control thread.

Looks like we found somebody's button.

Damn Mexicans showing up at temple!

:)

|3.10.07 @ 9:29PM|#

For heaven's sake people, if you want to bitch about joe, do it over an issue where he disagrees with us in a substantial way.

Whoa whoa whoa. joe is against gun control? The gods must be sending their "ringers" to confuse me again...

|3.10.07 @ 9:41PM|#

All these conspiracy theories that the NRA secretly wants gun control to win are inane. The people that work for the NRA are all true believers and even if the individual right were upheld, there would still be battles over the extent of permissable regulation/right to carry/and general hunting and shooting issues. Here's a more realistic reason they weren't a party to the suit- maybe they think the time to move forward on this wasn't ripe. There is currently one Justice of the Supreme Court who is on record supporting the indvidual right. Four are almost certainly opposed. So the pro-indiviualist side is going to have to go 4 for 4 with the undecideds while the gun grabbers need to get just 1 out of 4. Those are pretty crappy odds. The thinking of the NRA may be to hope for a Republican Presidential victory (or a timely death in the next 2 years) and wait both Stevens and Ginsburg out. If they are replaced, you're only down 1-2 going in, and you have 6 undecideds all appointed by a Republican President. That might be just what you need, because the individualist view only recently attained almost universal status among the typical Conservative appointee. Remember how hostile Bork was to the individual right argument.

Single Issue Voter|3.10.07 @ 10:00PM|#

"Ergo, Thomas Szasz is wrong."


Wrong about what?

|3.10.07 @ 10:14PM|#

I've never been clear on how the "More guns = More crime" argument works. People who want to commit crimes will do so, whether armed with an Uzi or a steak knife.

I just can't visualize that person on the margin thinking "well, that car-washing job looked pretty sweet, but since the gun place is a little closer to home, I guess I'll turn to a life of crime instead."

Guy Montag|3.10.07 @ 10:22PM|#

Several items.

What on earth was that 3000 lines of crap about Mexicans showing up at Temple? Did Eve Fairbanks eat fruitcake again?

Wow, so there's no guns in DC now? What he hell are all those homicide victims getting shot with?

Apparently they are being killed by rounds coming from VA, the nearest "gun lax" area. I swear, an ex-girlfriend lobbiest from Reston told me that the firearm homocide problem in DC was caused by Virginia, somehow. Her solution was DC level gun control everyplace. She is not the only person I heard that from, but she is the only person I was doing who told it to me in person.

I hope that crazy gun manufacturer murder lawsuit got kicked in DC. The MSM logic, that was popular in Reston, VA a the time, was "if DC residents are responsible for clearing snow/ice from public sidewalks in front of their homes, then gun manufacturers are responsible for the homocides with their guns." Yes, this was shouted at me in the Reston Town Center by supporters of this nonsense and from the television set. I never figured out why the cement contractor was not sued for people slipping on the ice, just like Glock was being sued for homocides with stolen guns. I did not get that business about a diamond being the hardest substance, but you can't fry an egg on it, for some sort of teflon cookwear by the Ginsu knife people either. Yea, I got a business degree, not a comma placement degree.

Yea, if this case goes through the right way then the pople of DC will be able to have a pistol in their home AND be able to move it from one room to another without a new permit. What about the bullets and that stupid fine for posessing them?

It was stupid enough for me to have to wait THREE FREAKING DAYS to pick up A PUMP SHOTGUN from a dealer in Virginia because the pinheads in Richmond did not like my LEGALLY witholding my SSAN from the STUPID FORMS required for purchasing A FREAKING PUMP SHOTGUN.

I finally joined the NRA a couple of years ago, lifetime member, but I am still not happy with their wimpy stance on machine guns.

Harking to several posts, the in-service shotgun in my home is loaded and chambered. No "racking" the action to scare off the jerk standing in my foyer. He got his warning when he entered the building adn another one when he turned the door handle. I am concerned for the safety of my neighbors, so I use #6 shot, rather than a pistol, as overpenetration is a serious issue in condo buildings.

No, the jackass in my home is not going to die for a television set. He is going to die for being in my home without permission.

OT: A friend who just began working at Pat Buchanan's magazine, The American Conservative (is that a new disguise for National Socialist, just like Democrat Party is?) just sent me 2 issues. On the back of one is an ad for an event by The Future of Freedom Foundation. They are having a dinner at the Reston Hyatt. One of the speakers is Daniel Ellsberg? When did he become a Libertarian? "The libertarian case on foreign policy and civil liberties will be presented by:" long list follows. I can see Ron Paul, Bob Barr (maybe) and Judge Andrew Napolitano (we were on screen together when FOX was in Herndon, VA at Jimmie's Old Town Tavern); but Daniel Ellsberg?

Guy Montag|3.10.07 @ 10:42PM|#

I've never been clear on how the "More guns = More crime" argument works.

It works for people who can't think past a bumper sticker. Same as "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" being the whole argument for the "class gulf" or whatever it is called now. No matter that poor people become rich people in this country every day. No matter that many truly poor people have living standards that dead kings would envy. Yes, there are poor people but no then do not normally get poorer and there is plenty of data to back that up.

You saw these people in college. They lived in the student's center, sometimes graduated. Some even got jobs as writers who write "the rich get richer, the poor get poorer" in newspapers and for teleprompters.

There brighter classmates got jobs as bartenders.

Guy Montag|3.10.07 @ 10:47PM|#

ACK! Sorry for the worse than usual spelling and miswording.

|3.10.07 @ 11:13PM|#

Guy,
In reference to your use of #6 shot.
I commend your consideration of the neighbors while defending your castle. I prefer snake-shot in my .357 mag for the same reasons. The handgun is just easier to handle in the confines of a home than a long gun. and a drop or 2 of elmers glue holds the shot together till it hits something solid.

Guy Montag|3.10.07 @ 11:23PM|#

The handgun is just easier to handle in the confines of a home than a long gun.

Well, they are just itty-bitty shotguns :)

Not hard to handle in my place. 1 br. condo is basically 2 large rooms plus a kitchen and bathroom.

My late ex-girlfriend had a .357 and she kept her gun oil right next to her hairspray. Lots of other things to love about her too.

Just noticed, this thread is missing gun porn and hybrid juiciness too!

link miser|3.11.07 @ 12:43AM|#

yo' link (to the Wash Times) ain't be workin'

Egon|3.11.07 @ 1:43AM|#

OK, pal. I got yer gun porn right here.

Guy Montag|3.11.07 @ 8:34AM|#

Egon,

Nice set! How about some stats?

The one in my link is a Saiga-12 (mentioned in comments in previous story) and it is laying across the 'hybrid' 1972 Dodge Rallye Charger. The "power hump hood" is visible in the background.

|3.11.07 @ 10:32AM|#

The Washington Post despises the NRA as much for its defense of the first amendment as the second. Gun control is just one issue to be swayed by the power of the paper. Free political speech is THE issue that undermines the Wapo's effectiveness in controlling the debate and getting their way. I maintain my NRA membership because the right to pool money for speech is crucial in fending off tyranny.

tomWright|3.11.07 @ 10:35AM|#

Egon, I think I see an AR upper, but no lower?

Unless that is part of one of those odd carbine attachments for the 1911 I see next to it, though it does not look like any of the ones I have seen.

Lucky you, with the long mag tubes on your shotguns. Here in NJ a shotgun with one of those is considered an assault weapon. My M3 looks silly with a short mag.

Soon as I get to NH, getting a long mag. And a full auto. And a .50 BMG. Just cause I can.

the Dread Pirate Viking Moose|3.11.07 @ 11:16AM|#

".50 BMG"

Big
Mutherfuckin
Gun

Brotherben - there's your amen!!!!!

|3.11.07 @ 11:46AM|#

FatDrunkandStupid,

"All these conspiracy theories that the NRA secretly wants gun control to win are inane." Agreed, but not more inane than the theories that social workers really want to keep people poor, or any of the other shallow "who benefits?" thinking that passes for world-weary cynicism among political dilletantes.

This seems to be a particularly common mistake among those - primarily Marxists and libertarians - who emphasize the pursuit of wealth as the driving force of politics and history.

tros|3.11.07 @ 11:57AM|#

I am too tired to read this whole conversation, but I think that individual people, that is to say, SELF RESPECTING and RATIONAL and N O N V I O L E N T people should be allowed to own guns. Good. Thank you government, for our very last freedom delivered intact. Be careful letting those nonviolent people own gun's though, there might be some serious national security threats if all the CITIZENS decided to stay home from the WAR and DEFEND THEIR COUNTRY.

O yes, and I am sure I don't have to tell you that there were probably a lot of retards involved in this case. Right now I am tired of trying to communicate with retards (not Hit and Run readers, don't be offended) so I am going to talk to myself instead.

check the reasonmag facebook grouop ;-)

Grotius|3.11.07 @ 12:01PM|#

joe,

Why is campaign finance "reform" such a big deal to a lot of liberals?

Grotius|3.11.07 @ 12:21PM|#

joe,

This seems to be a particularly common mistake among those - primarily Marxists and libertarians - who emphasize the pursuit of wealth as the driving force of politics and history.

Neither Marx nor most of the Marxists I've met emphasized wealth as the driving force in politics and history. Economics and particular types of deterministic economic relations seem to be far more important. Wealth is a component of that, but only a component.

As for libertarians, well, in my experience they talk about about culture, geography, and indeed wealth, as well as other factors.

As for me, well, it is a complicated mileau of factors.

Guy Montag|3.11.07 @ 12:26PM|#

Be careful letting those nonviolent people own gun's though, there might be some serious national security threats if all the CITIZENS decided to stay home from the WAR and DEFEND THEIR COUNTRY.

Kind of missing the point there. Nobody is forced into military, civil or contractor service in the USA. Are you posting from another country?

Perhaps you are lashing out at Leftist Democrats who keep proposing that draft/slavery bill, since they are never happy without some slavery.

|3.11.07 @ 1:03PM|#

The NRA seems to have opposed the lawsuit because the last thing they want is a precedent against their interests. Sure, the Supreme Court looks like it would uphold a broad construction of 2nd Amendment rights, but that doesn't take into account the court's equally strong rhetoric of deferring to the democratic (i.e., legislative) process.

tros|3.11.07 @ 1:03PM|#

I was actually referring to Heinlein, starship troopers, and the wierd military fetishes of libertarians and marxists alike.

tros|3.11.07 @ 1:04PM|#

I've got to give the libertarians credit because they can tell the difference between science fiction and science journalism.

|3.11.07 @ 1:06PM|#

"I've never been clear on how the "More guns = More crime" argument works."

Well that is probably because it is usually formulated as "more guns = more gun crime." When you are deaf to modifiers it makes English a very difficult language.

That little modifier motivates the idea that criminal background checks should be used to make guns harder (or at least more expensive) for criminals to get.

|3.11.07 @ 1:12PM|#

A significant portion of the patients in any health care setting (numbers based on region) are the favored (clones) who were told to report non-existant symptoms FOR POSITIONING'S SAKE!!! When they use examples expect they are trying to disceive you with this "ringer" tactic.

My wife sees this day in and out at the VA. They call them vets, but they still get the clone treatment.

D.A. Ridgely|3.11.07 @ 1:28PM|#

File under No Comment Required:

Right now I am tired of trying to communicate with retards ... so I am going to talk to myself instead.

Guy Montag|3.11.07 @ 1:38PM|#

Back to that 2nd Ammendment thingie and the way States control the right of the people to express it.

The requirements for my 2nd Ammendment license are pretty strict, in my view. A dishonerable discharge eliminates you from being eligable.

D.A. Ridgely|3.11.07 @ 1:44PM|#

But not, apparently, illiteracy.

|3.11.07 @ 1:51PM|#

When I pictured myself as the owner of a .50 BMG, I had a dishonorable discharge.

Guy Montag|3.11.07 @ 2:01PM|#

But not, apparently, illiteracy.

you spell your way, I shall spell my way

tros|3.11.07 @ 2:02PM|#

daily liberaltarian digest, for all of you out there thinking it would be a nice idea but no fucking clue how to go about making it happen:

[don't bother deleting this, cross posted everywhere.]

{That means you, Daily Kos insects}

Okay, first, thank you Ted for making this group. In my experience starting things that don't make sense can change things for the better. I don't need to even ask Ted about any of this, because he signs his communiques with a few magic words that help to animate this bizzare computer role playing game that I am involved in (ha ha ha hah ahahaha....) Okay.

I want you all to know that I tried to play with the leftist marching band. I tried to play, but I was told to stop. We made a bullet list, argued about it, and then listened to some jazz recordings. Then we sat in the basement and listened to "The Best of Communism" CD. Which was the best of Communism, Adrienne? I can't remember. Was it the food shortage lines, the secret police, or the nuclear weapons? Which one of those was the best? If you want to know what good music is, why don't you ask the nearest black person.

O wait, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the affirmative action got to work this group over just yet. Here is some music for African liberation that you might want to take a look at:

(Bob Marley)
If dem want to win the revoloution
Must win it, wit rasta!
Can't win no other way
Because if you win other way, you go fight again
If rasta win, den no more war

(Busta Rhymes)
Yeah

(Bob Marley)
Hear the words of the rasta man say
Babylon your throne gone down, gone down
Babylon your throne gone down

(Busta Ryhmes)
And it goes like that what you talkin about
What you talkin about, what you talkin about
Yeah, yeah, what you talkin about
Yeah, yeah, what you talkin about

(Bob Marley)
Did I hear the words of the higher man say
Babylon your throne gone down, gone down
Babylon your throne gone down
Did I hear the angel wit the seven seals
Babylon your throne gone down, gone down
Babylon your throne gone down

(Busta Rhymes)
Whatchu say? Whatchu talkin about?

(Bob Marley)
I say fly away home to Zion (fly away home)
I say fly away home to Zion (fly away home)
One bright morning when man work is over man will fly away home

(Busta Rhymes)
Take it back to the home land
Where the holy sacred and pure is at
Na'mean?

(Bob Marley)
One bright mornin when my life is over I will fly away home

(Busta Rhymes)
Yeah, yeah
Fool, fool boy you must fe wan't die
Anyhow you try disrespect King Selassie
Bruk two ah yuh foot and tab yuh in ah yuh eye
Wit proper information bout rastafarai
Make sure you read bible and salute the most high
The ones who don't know be the ones who ask why
That His imperial majesty really get crucify
Allow'll real get the colour blue in ah the sky
Why after you feed the youth the baby still ah cry
You need Ja, in ah yuh life, me nah to yuh no lie
Betta believe the I and I really verify
Spirit of salaseai will take you very high
They want me stop this time sit down the other guy
Long time we ah wait to see we people unify
Clean out we self and real's start purify
We done uniform you know it's straight mulitply
Straight multiply, know it's straight multiply

(Bob Marley)
I say fly away home to Zion (Fly away home)
I say one bright mornin when my work is over I will fly away home

(Busta Rhymes)
Ay, yo, Spliff where you at?

(Spliff Starr)
I hold my glass up high, and I toast to the most high
Since my B-day up to this day is close by
Watchin over me, while Babylon scopin me
From my mother's womb they took my mind started mouldin me
Like Mookie on the crock I heard the devil callin me
By the powers of Ja, he took the devils off of me
I can see clearly now, I'm stepping with authority
God blessed you, I got the whole world supportin me
Ja, is my friend different from the enemy them
I talks to him shoutin out lookin up to heaven
Gave me a call he said I want you tell them all
That you shall witness when Babylon fall
All you shall witness when Babylon fall
All you shall witness when Bablyon fall

(Busta Rhymes)
Yeah
Street chronicle for the evening
The truth, the undisputed Flipmode Squad
Busta Rhymes, Spliff Starr, Steve Marley and the Marley fam
-----

So if any of you want-to-be-political-revolutionaries types currently paying and working to attend Conformity University had any questions about how to do it, WELCOMEHOME.ORG

P.S. the entire CD "Chant Down Babylon" is very instructive. I am sorry I called you all retards, I should have understood that this word would be offensive to your brainwashing. I asked a friend of mine to describe this behavior, and he described it as "almost autistic". I still prefer to use the term RETARD. As in, GROW A BRAIN, RETARD!

P.P.S. If you don't like mushrooms, you can grow a brain by reading Reason Magazine. They even have a facebook group. And if you are going to try to SELL me that TIRED OLD BULLSHIT about how civil libertarians are only selfish shills for the Right, then you ARE retarded.

|3.11.07 @ 2:05PM|#

brotherben,

The policy is don't ask, don't tell. But you done gone and told.

Robert|3.11.07 @ 2:06PM|#

"Why is campaign finance `reform' such a big deal to a lot of liberals?"

Many of them I think see conservatives as moneybags who get to finance their side better than the poor downtrodden do theirs, so they see such measures as equalizing.

|3.11.07 @ 2:06PM|#

Y'know, if Cavanaugh were still around, he wouldn't put up with this 1000-word post shit. While the cat's away, the mice will play, etc.

tros|3.11.07 @ 2:16PM|#

Y'know, if Cavanaugh were still around, he wouldn't put up with this 1000-word post shit. While the cat's away, the mice will play, etc.

Sorry, if this were a dead tree I would just draw a big circled "A". Sorry for taking up too much of the infinite space.

VM|3.11.07 @ 2:34PM|#

"brotherben | March 11, 2007, 1:51pm | #
When I pictured myself as the owner of a .50 BMG, I had a dishonorable discharge."

cuz you were playing with the corn syrup (high fructose variety)

D.A. Ridgely|3.11.07 @ 2:41PM|#

cuz you were playing with the corn syrup (high fructose variety)

... making him a stalker?

|3.11.07 @ 3:19PM|#

tros,

It's not an issue of memory, it's an issue of having to scroll through 9 pages to get to the next post.

LarryA|3.11.07 @ 3:32PM|#

A dishonorable discharge eliminates you from being eligible (for a carry license).

Actually, a dishonorable military discharge also makes you ineligible to possess a firearm under Federal law. It's one of the questions you answer on the Form 4473 before you purchase a gun, as are several of the other requirements for your Tennessee CHL.

Your fees, at least, are a little lower than Texas.

I don't live in Uganda.

Think of it as a preview. Here's their side.

I've got to give the libertarians credit because they can tell the difference between science fiction and science journalism.

The difference is obvious. In the long run science fiction's predictions are far more accurate.

Many of them I think see conservatives as moneybags who get to finance their side better than the poor downtrodden do theirs, so they see such (campaign finance) measures as equalizing.

The irony being that:
1. Almost all of the big campaign "moneybags" donors vote Democratic. Google "Soros."
2. The main aphrodisiac in D.C. is power, not cash.

|3.11.07 @ 4:05PM|#

LarryA:

If you think the UN has any say in the US about the gun issue, you're an idiot.

If you honestly think the UN has that much influence in the US, then you must also believe that the NRA's lobbying would be truly futile inder the New World Order overlords.

|3.11.07 @ 4:33PM|#

cuz you were playing with the corn syrup (high fructose variety)

... making him a stalker?


this post is too corny, even by the standards of Buck Owens and Roy Clark

|3.11.07 @ 5:03PM|#

tros = reason for a comment filter.

Dude, I don't know if you actulaly have anything interesting to say or not, but when you either post dissertation-length posts full of nothing, or those wonderful tidbits that look like English is your third language, you beg to be ignored.

|3.11.07 @ 5:05PM|#

And I had the balls to misspell "actually" in that last post. Good on me.

|3.11.07 @ 8:08PM|#

Grotius,

"Why is campaign finance "reform" such a big deal to a lot of liberals?"

Because many of them feel that the existing campaign finance system provided unfair benefits for monied special interests, and because they feel that it tempts/compels elected officials to put too much of their effort and time into fund raising.

And I agree with you about Marxists - my term "pursuit of wealth" was a very broad statement. Ultimately, economics and class issue can be traced back to the pursuit of wealth, but there are enough steps in between to distinguish the Marxist materialism from capitalist, classical economics profit maximizing.

|3.11.07 @ 8:10PM|#

...primarily Marxists and libertarians - who emphasize the pursuit of wealth as the driving force of politics and history.

dammit joe, I thought we were libertarians because we all wanted to smoke dope in peace?

|3.11.07 @ 8:13PM|#

jf,

It's an internet law, just under Godwin's:

If you insult someon's intelligence or linguistic ability in a comment, you will make a spelling or grammatical error.

|3.11.07 @ 8:25PM|#

Well that is probably because it is usually formulated as "more guns = more gun crime."

Bullshit, NM! Just try googling your formulation and compare to googling the unmodified one. The usual one is indeed "more guns, more crime". And the usual suspects (VPC, Brady, etc.) show up as well.

|3.11.07 @ 8:32PM|#

Um, if you google five words, and then four of those words, you're going to get more hits on the shorter one.

That's how google works.

|3.11.07 @ 8:38PM|#

Um, if you google five words, and then four of those words, you're going to get more hits on the shorter one.

I did it the other way around. And you don't even get the 4-word entries (at least on the first page) when you ask for the 5-word version. NM was BSing, plain and simple.

|3.11.07 @ 8:46PM|#

I didn't mean google from within your results.

The logic of the google engine treats any additional word so that it excludes some pages. Shorter search terms produce more results than longer ones.

|3.11.07 @ 8:54PM|#

If you insult someon's intelligence or linguistic ability in a comment, you will make a spelling or grammatical error.

I love the way that you misspell "someone's" in that post, joe. Nicely done!

:)

|3.11.07 @ 9:01PM|#

Juris.
For an example, look at the link above in the original post.

"Notably, it's utterly lacking in any evidence to support the claim that lax gun control laws result in more gun-related crime."

That is the claim being refuted.
Not more guns = more crime.

Regarding your google methods... you will notice that many many many of those hits you get are from people arguing against the "more guns = more crime" strawman.

Not BSing, just asking for more honest debate.

|3.11.07 @ 9:07PM|#

Here is a typical post by a pro-gun control source on the topic...

"Measures that seek to reduce the number of firearms in our communities actually seem to be having a measurable impact on reducing gun crime. A study by the Harvard School of Public Health suggests that children ages five to 14 living in the five states with the highest gun ownership were 16 times more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries, 7 times more likely to die from firearm suicide and 3 times more likely to die from firearm homicides compared to children of the same age living in the five states with the lowest gun ownership."

Note that once crime is introduced so as to establish that we are discussing gun crimes, the semantic framing of the topic means that you can refer to "gun crime" as "crime" without fear of misunderstanding (assuming a certain level of reading comprehension).

Look for my spelling errors cuz I'm calling into question your intelligence.

|3.11.07 @ 9:17PM|#

I am perfectly willing to accept both more gun crime and more gun accidents as the price of upholding the right of a free people to bear arms both for individual and collective defence against law-breakers, tyrants and invaders.

My life, my property and above all my liberty are far too precious for me to entrust their defence solely to others.

I understand that others might think differently. Those who do not agree with the above are free to not own guns. However, as I have no plans to despoil you of your life, liberty or property please do not despoil me of my right to defend myself.

|3.11.07 @ 9:20PM|#

No NM, the question had been posed about the "more guns = more crime argument". You replied to that with your modified formulation - which I tested with a couple of google searches (run independently, not one from within the other).

Yes, the "more guns, more crime" does bring up some counter-arguments, but it also brings up the people that DO make the argument. You don't get either with your modified version.

I think everyone can agree that a total gun ban is almost certain to increase "gun crime" - as every possession case would constitute a crime. Likewise, some percentage of current federal gun "crime" is a dealer not dotting every 'i' or crossing every 't'. [And I'm not excusing the crooked dealers that ARE out there.] And is any crime of violence somehow less a crime because a knife was used instead of a gun?

|3.11.07 @ 9:27PM|#

Here is a typical post by a pro-gun control source on the topic...

And yet no source. Perhaps because that might allow someone to examine the entire material for flaws rather than being overawed by the majestic invocation of Harvard? As it happens NM, I have some familiarity with this study.

The key flaw - it is entirely circular. To establish the highest gun ownership rates (since that is an unknown) they use a proxy - the states with the highest incidents of gun misuses.

That you would cite this (without link) says volumes about your intelligence.

|3.11.07 @ 9:41PM|#

Juris...

I am on your side on the issue.

I just think it is dishonest to cast the concerns of those who support gun control as being about crime in general. They are concerned about criminals using a gun to commit violent crime, not that more guns are going to result in more tax fraud. And to attempt to blur the issues with side bars like "a dealer not dotting every 'i' or crossing every 't'" is just dishonest.

Those who support gun control do so because they are concerned about the use of guns in violent crimes. Their argument is that when guns are available, those with violent tendencies will use them to commit their violent crimes. If they were less available, then the violent types would have to work harder to get them, or would use other means.If you have an argument against that case, then make it against the case that is being made...not the more guns = more crime strawman.

Look at British crime stats. Less guns equals less gun crime, but more knife crime. There is a certain logic to being less concerned about a thug with a knife than a thug with a gun.

"That you would cite this (without link) says volumes about your intelligence."

It was used as an example of the language used in the argument. Notice that they refer specifically to firearm homicides...not homicides in general.

Get a fucking clue.

|3.11.07 @ 9:41PM|#

j.i.,

I've only ever seen the argument made that guns increase gun-related crime. I've never seen anyone argue that more guns leads to increases in snatch-and-grabs, money laundering, or drunk driving.

|3.11.07 @ 9:56PM|#

Look at British crime stats. Less guns equals less gun crime, but more knife crime. There is a certain logic to being less concerned about a thug with a knife than a thug with a gun.

Except the thug with the knife (or club or chain) will be bigger than you and not at all afraid that you might be able to defend yourself. He will have contempt for you and the way he will show his contempt is to beat you within an inch of your life before killing you. Check those Brit crime stats again.

|3.11.07 @ 9:56PM|#

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but there's *another* Dred Scott reference which is relevant to gun control.

Chief Justice Taney, explaining why black people (i. e., the descendants of black slaves) were not "citizens" as the term was understood in the Constitution, declared that the framers of the Constitution did not intend to recognize black people as having the rights of citizenship. Among those rights, Taney mentioned the right to bear arms. Here's the relevant passage:

"The legislation of the States therefore shows, in a manner not to be mistaken, the inferior and subject condition of that race [black people] at the time the Constitution was adopted, and long afterwards, throughout the thirteen States by which that instrument was framed; and it is hardly consistent with the respect due to these States, to suppose that they regarded at that time, as fellow-citizens and members of the sovereignty, a class of beings whom they had thus stigmatized; whom, as we are bound, out of respect to the State sovereignties, to assume they had deemed it just and necessary thus to stigmatize, and upon whom they had impressed such deep and enduring marks of inferiority and degradation; or, that when they met in convention to form the Constitution, they looked upon them as a portion of their constituents, or designed to include them in the provisions so carefully inserted for the security and protection of the liberties and rights of their citizens. It cannot be supposed that they intended to secure to them rights, and privileges, and rank, in the new political body throughout the Union, which every one of them denied within the limits of its own dominion. More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State."

Dred Scott decision, 60 U.S. 393, 416-417 (1857)

Grotius|3.11.07 @ 10:06PM|#

Mad Max,

The thing is that Taney was wrong. Taney failed to acknowledge what was known at the time - that free blacks had voted for the delegates sent to several state conventions meant to discuss and vote up or down on the merits of the Constitution.

|3.11.07 @ 10:19PM|#

"Except the thug with the knife (or club or chain) will be bigger than you and not at all afraid that you might be able to defend yourself. He will have contempt for you and the way he will show his contempt is to beat you within an inch of your life before killing you. Check those Brit crime stats again."

Lots of assumptions in that little fantasy. The equalizer properties of guns work both ways. As a friend of mine said wisely. "I am not afraid of any 14 year old with a knife, but give him a gun and he's got my wallet."

Stats,

"But murder rates for both countries are now changing. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and by last year it was 3.5 times. With American rates described as "in startling free-fall" and British rates as of October 2002 the highest for 100 years the two are on a path to converge."

Again, I am not arguing the pro gun control side. I just think it is important to be clear what you are arguing against.

Guy Montag|3.11.07 @ 10:31PM|#

So, the Sunday afternoon babble has prooved that DC must remain gun crime free by remaining gun free.

In other news, DC is now cancer free because they have banned smoking in bars.

As we will see, in some yet to be fabricated link, the only increases in cancer will be due to third-hand smoke as the result of breathing the used air from the maurading bands of oppressive, armed white Virginians wreaking genocide on the innocent people of DC.

|3.11.07 @ 11:11PM|#

Juris In

I have tried to find these more guns = more crime arguments, but have failed.

I did find this article with the title...More Guns, More Crime.

" NBER Working Paper No. 7967*
Issued in October 2000
NBER Program(s): PE

A non-technical summary of this paper is available in the February 2001 NBER digest. You can sign up to receive the NBER Digest by email.

---- Abstract -----

This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual gun ownership rates at both the state and the county level during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven entirely by the impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used.

|3.11.07 @ 11:30PM|#

The argument from the Brady website Juris accuses of using the more guns = more crime argument.


Research now substantiates what common sense has always argued: in a society riddled with gun-related crime, reducing the opportunities where guns can be used will actually reduce the rate of gun violence.

Guy Montag|3.11.07 @ 11:52PM|#

I am trying to figure out how stricter gun laws result in a higher gun ownership rate.

If higher homicide rates are the result of higher gun ownership rates (who am I to question Harvard!) then why is the DC side or the river murder rate higher than Arlington, VA? Why is the New York City homicide rate higher than the rest of the State?

Is it because of the Arlington gun ownership rate killing DCans? How about that Vermont murder rate? Their gun control laws are almost non-existent and their ownership rate seems pretty high.

Are there any studies out there by zip code? You know, since some States, like New York have vastly different gun laws for the parts where there is less murder and the parts where there is more murder.

Did the Virginia gun-murder rate skyrocket 3 or 4 years ago when Virginia knocked down the ability of cities and counties to make harsher gun control laws and LOWERED the overall gun control of the State as a whole? If it did it appears to not have made the news.

The joes of the world need to come up with a better story/theory and, no, I will not believe that white hooded Virginians are romping through the streets of DC killing people and dropping off free pistols so the living residents can kill each other but is just not being reported by the right-wing media either.

Guy Montag|3.12.07 @ 12:35AM|#

BTW, the comments on the Wash. Post editorial are refreshingly clueful.

strat|3.12.07 @ 1:11AM|#

In other news, DC is now cancer free because they have banned smoking in bars.

As we will see, in some yet to be fabricated link, the only increases in cancer will be due to third-hand smoke as the result of breathing the used air from the maurading bands of oppressive, armed white Virginians wreaking genocide on the innocent people of DC.

Didn't a bunch of insurance companies pull out of D.C. due to their oh-so-egalitarian, but actuarially unsound law requiring them to ignore evidence of HIV in underwriting?

I'm guessing people are already unable to get cancer coverage, so it's a good thing they solved that problem.

Does all this mean I can smoke cigars at Les Halles again...with a sidearm now? Rock on!

|3.12.07 @ 1:33AM|#

It was used as an example of the language used in the argument. Notice that they refer specifically to firearm homicides...not homicides in general.

Actually, they posit juvenile death due to firearms (homicide, suicide and accidental) to be positively correlated to the rate of gun ownership by state (as determined by the aforementioned proxy). They make absolutely NO mention of armed robbery, ADW or other violent crimes involving guns, or of any kind non-violent gun crime. So, they are not making the argument that you suppose they make - that more guns = more gun crimes. Their argument is that more guns equals more death due to guns (particularly amongst juveniles).

Those who support gun control do so because they are concerned about the use of guns in violent crimes.

I used to think that too. But I've argued with too many people who don't really understand the data (or risks) - they have an emotional reaction and that's it. Guns scare them and therefore no one (except the police) should have them. Anyone who actually thinks about the issue cannot sustain a coherent argument in favor of gun control.

There is a certain logic to being less concerned about a thug with a knife than a thug with a gun.

Uh-huh, that is a logic that just might get you killed. Thugs will do as thugs do, and given that they don't tend to get their guns from the same sources as you or I - they are irrelevant to the issue of keeping handguns out of our hands. Gun laws aren't very effective at keeping guns out of the hands of people determined to ignore the law. Isn't that kinda obvious too?

Look here and tell me that they so fastidiously limit themselves to "gun crime". Now, you might say, well that's the VPC and they are notorious liars - and I won't disagree. But the argument they make is the one you say no one does.

|3.12.07 @ 2:17AM|#

joe sez I've only ever seen the argument made that guns increase gun-related crime.

To be fair, Lott argued the obverse - more guns, less crime. What he actually measured was a transfer of crime that wasn't necessarily a net drop. And you have to be careful of stats about "gun-related" crime - they can and do include what you might call 'administrative' gun crimes (i.e. bad paperwork vs. a violent act).

The big argument is usually about our homicide rate, and most often constrasted against the British. What the uninformed don't know is that the U.S. white homicide rate (even with guns) isn't very much higher then the British - our overall rate is skewed up by the Hispanic and Black segments of our population. Those same segments have higher NON-gun homicide rates than whites with guns, and most surveys of gun ownership put the highest ownership rates in white, middle-age, males. So whatever problem(s) we have with homicide in this country - the plethora of guns is not the prime cause.

|3.12.07 @ 2:34AM|#

Egon,

I see that you live in a town in the Southern California desert. Nice tile work!

|3.12.07 @ 2:43AM|#

Juris says...

"Actually, they posit juvenile death due to firearms (homicide, suicide and accidental) to be positively correlated to the rate of gun ownership by state (as determined by the aforementioned proxy). They make absolutely NO mention of armed robbery, ADW or other violent crimes involving guns, or of any kind non-violent gun crime. So, they are not making the argument that you suppose they make - that more guns = more gun crimes. Their argument is that more guns equals more death due to guns (particularly amongst juveniles)."

What they actually say is...

"3 times more likely to die from firearm homicides "

Firearm homicide is a gun crime. Crime was the topic.

Now the issue of accidents is a different issue... but you are, again, misrepresenting the argument about guns and crime.

Notice that even in the article that is responsible for most of your google hits... the phrase used is...

"murders in which a gun is used" and the Brady site uses "gun violence."

And this "well that's the VPC and they are notorious liars..." is to a link that is addressing a different issue.

The meat of VPC's argument..."Supporters of "shall issue" concealed carry laws maintain that only "law-abiding citizens" apply for and receive concealed handgun licenses. At an April 18, 1996, press conference in Dallas, then-National Rifle Association (NRA) chief lobbyist Tanya Metaksa asserted, "As we get more information about right-to-carry, our point is made again and again....People who get permits in states which have fair right-to-carry laws are law-abiding, upstanding community leaders who merely seek to exercise their right to self-defense." Clearly this is not the case. As shown in news articles and in the VPC's License to Kill studies, concealed handgun license holders are arrested for a multitude of offenses, including violent crimes such as murder, kidnapping, and sexual assault. Most concealed carry states keep information on the crimes committed by their concealed carry license holders hidden. This does not mean that crimes do not occur. As illustrated by the few states that have "shall issue" concealed carry and have had their concealed carry programs (however briefly) examined, concealed carry license holders are not the "upstanding community leaders" that pro-gun advocates promised. Allowing the public access to the information necessary to evaluate a concealed carry program is the minimum that a state should do when overseeing a program that involves the use of lethal force."

Not a more guns = more crime argument at all.

"Anyone who actually thinks about the issue cannot sustain a coherent argument in favor of gun control."

Oh. I see. If you think about the issue, you have to agree with Juris.

This attitude may be why you have a hard time understanding the other side's position. It is people like you that make it hard for our side.

Guy Montag|3.12.07 @ 7:16AM|#

From the VPC quote:
Most concealed carry states keep information on the crimes committed by their concealed carry license holders hidden.

So I have purchased a license to speed, drink and rape license too?

These people truly believe that those of us with a CHP get our crimes hidden just because we proved we can shoot, rather than having the CHP revoked at the first excuse that the State has to do so?

Sounds like more real crime that they need to root out, or a throway line in leftie-code that their readers buy as fact.

|3.12.07 @ 9:15AM|#

Guy,

"The joes of the world need to come up with a better story/theory.."

If you read gooder, you might have noticed that I haven't been making any of the arguments you attribute to me.

Your mind is to prejudices as a fish is to water.

|3.12.07 @ 9:16AM|#

"Look at British crime stats. Less guns equals less gun crime, but more knife crime. There is a certain logic to being less concerned about a thug with a knife than a thug with a gun."

I agree with New Mejican that it is important to stay honest in our assessment of VPC's argument. The strategic blurring VPC does is in the area of 'gun violence' vs. total violence. They talk about reductions in gun crimes and gun violence, then act as though there are no substitution effects. They do not claim that the presence of guns increases overall crime, nor do they explicitly state that the increase of guns increases overall violence. What they do is say 'gun violence' and leave it to you to sort out how meaningful that concept really is.

That said, if you are more worried about the gun than the knife inside about 12', it is because you've never been rushed by a guy trying to mark you with a fake knife. My first time through that drill, I got cut six or seven times before I could clear the holster. A guy with a knife is a deadly, dealdy situation.

|3.12.07 @ 9:31AM|#

Jason, Why is it then, that we can still buy sacks full of knives at nearly every large store in america?

I knew a guy that died of heart attack as his wife vigorously made love with him...

Guy Montag|3.12.07 @ 9:43AM|#

Actually, the injury rate from any object increases greatly when that object is present. Seems to be all they are saying. They are not against crime, they are against guns.

You could substitute any other object for gun and it would mean the same thing.

Homes with bathtubs have a greater risk of people drowning in the tub than homes without bathtubs. Compare the bathtub deaths between the US and france.

|3.12.07 @ 9:46AM|#

While it's interesting to talk about guns and crime, let's not forget what the 2nd Amd is really about. As Vox Day said last week:

Of course, the fact that the Founding Fathers, a group of men engaged in violent armed rebellion against their legal government, would have wanted only the government's soldiers and policemen to be legally armed is so deeply and willfully stupid that it still boggles my mind that anyone brain-dead enough to make that argument can remain conscious long enough to articulate it.

It's really about "the people" retaining the tools to fight off other, and their own, governments. This actually requires REAL assault weapons, not weapons that "look like" assualt weapons. It's not about hunting rabbits, or reducing crime.

|3.12.07 @ 9:50AM|#

My view, with no real basis other than an extrapolation of how I react in situations, is that if there were suddenly no guns, there would be a drop in crime until people got acclimated to the use of knives. There is a physicality and mindset to using a knife that is just different.

It is a mindset and nothing more substantial. Obviously, there was a time when people were plenty comfortable sticking each other, so I doubt 'the willies' forms the basis for an effective plan to reduce violent crime.

Guy Montag|3.12.07 @ 9:57AM|#

It's really about "the people" retaining the tools to fight off other, and their own, governments. This actually requires REAL assault weapons, not weapons that "look like" assualt weapons. It's not about hunting rabbits, or reducing crime.

Actually, that is pretty much what I am getting at when I say "the NRA is too soft on that machine gun issue."

|3.12.07 @ 10:06AM|#

"Jason, Why is it then, that we can still buy sacks full of knives at nearly every large store in america?"

Actually, I think the better question is, "Jason, then why do gun rights enthusiasts snicker and roll their eyes when someone suggests that you can protect your home effectively with a knife?"

Either knives are as dangerous as guns, or they're not.

Guy, that was my reaction to the story, too. You know, there are more thumb tack injuries in homes with thumb tacks than in homes without thumb tacks. Shocking, I know.

|3.12.07 @ 10:10AM|#

joe:

A physical guy can kill you just as dead with a knife. A woman, an older person, or someone generally unaggressive will not have a chance.

A gun is a better defensive weapon for that reason.

|3.12.07 @ 10:14AM|#

The anti-gunners conveniently overlook that fact that a gun is equally deadly in the hands of someone in a wheelchair, or of the female persuasion, or otherwise not young, healthy, and jacked full of machismo. In a gunfight, be on training and nerves.

Whereas in a knife fight, bet on young, healthy, and full of machismo. Which happens to be your demographic for criminals.

Everyone's got a gun - criminals have no advantage. Everyone's got a knife - advantage bad guys.

|3.12.07 @ 10:19AM|#

So a young, healthy guy is just as well off with a knife next to his bed?

|3.12.07 @ 10:24AM|#

Do they factor gun accidents into the stats? It seems like all they talk about is whether gun control limits gun violence, but I don't hear anybody talking about total gun-related deaths/injuries etc. Do stats include muggings at gunpoint? Just curious. I couldn't imagine a New York City were everybody's packing. I also couldn't imagine not owning guns.

|3.12.07 @ 10:29AM|#

To be clear, a knife disproportionately favors the physical aggressor. It is frikkin hard to defend against a rush by a knife waving attacker, especially if you start off asleep.

What helps overcome physicality is space. A defender who can end the fight at range has made harm to themselves less likely. A healthy aggressive guy would still rather not have to defend themselves at 0 range because anything can happen in a phone booth.

|3.12.07 @ 10:42AM|#

OK, that makes sense.

|3.12.07 @ 10:56AM|#

It seems like all they talk about is whether gun control limits gun violence, but I don't hear anybody talking about total gun-related deaths/injuries etc.

My vague recollection is that genuine accidents are so rare as to be statistical noise.

Suicides, on the other hand, will impact the data. If you count suicide-by-gun as a "gun-crime" or "gun-related" death, you will push up those numbers noticeably.

The question is whether they should be counted as crimes at all, and whether they should run up the death toll for guns, as anyone serious about suicide will find another way to kill themselves.

|3.12.07 @ 10:59AM|#

joe, you being against gun control is really not helpful. We depend on you to be the leftist scapegoat on ALL issues.

Could you please try to stay in character?

|3.12.07 @ 11:09AM|#

RC Dean,

"Anyone serious about suicide" is a problematic description. Many suicidal acts are performed by people who are less than 100% determined. A small handful of pills or some semi-deep lacerations to the wrists are common suicide "attempts" with a low chance of succeeding.

The increased ease of suicide by gun (just one squeeae of the trigger), it's irrerversability once the act is undertake (no sticking a finger down your throat or opening the garage door once you've pulled the trigger) and its high level of lethality greatly increase the "success" rate of suicide attempts.

|3.12.07 @ 11:10AM|#

crimethink,

How typical that a capitalist stooge like yourself would feel so attached to division of labor.

Why can't I be a conservative in the morning, a socialist at noon, a liberal in the afternoon, and a centrist after dinner?

|3.12.07 @ 11:48AM|#

"My first time through that drill, I got cut six or seven times before I could clear the holster."

Seems like you were using the wrong defense.
Drawing your gun doesn't work as well as controlling the knife.

Something to think about with this issue of self-defense.

Right around 99% of people will never be the victim of a violent crime...even in the most violent neighborhoods in America.

Most violent crime occurs between violent criminals and family members.

|3.12.07 @ 12:03PM|#

"To be clear, a knife disproportionately favors the physical aggressor. It is frikkin hard to defend against a rush by a knife waving attacker, especially if you start off asleep."

Still easier than defending against the gun... that equalizer effect again. Someone who will rush you while asleep in order to kill you, can stand outside your door and shoot you before you wake up.

All the things that make guns good for defense make them good for attack.

mediageek|3.12.07 @ 12:03PM|#

"Actually, the injury rate from any object increases greatly when that object is present. Seems to be all they are saying. They are not against crime, they are against guns."

Which makes it all the more astonishing that the accidental injury rates from firearms have been trending downwards.

|3.12.07 @ 12:06PM|#

joe, we know that lots of suicide attempts aren't serious and aren't intended to be successful.

What we don't know is how many people who just want attention or are acting out or whatever use a gun to the head. My guess is, not very many. If you're in it for the drama, there are lots of other ways to go that you know are non-lethal.

I think most people who kill themselves with a gun genuinely want to kill themselves, and if they couldn't get a gun would find other ways.

My recollection is that suicide rates and gun ownership rates are pretty disconnected.

|3.12.07 @ 12:13PM|#

Egon,

I guess I should set your mind at ease. I am not some psycho stalker, well at least I am not a psycho stalking you anyway. The gun porn picture you showed was interesting. When I first opened it, I thought, "Wow somebody had the same tiling idea I did", and then I thought, "Wow they did the same wainscoating too..." and then it dawned on me that I was looking at a picture of my own work.

|3.12.07 @ 12:13PM|#

R C,

Suicide attempts can't be easily divided into "100% serious" vs. "not serious" categories. We're talking about people who aren't thinking clearly, are pulled in different directions, and who who are often committing a rash act with little conscious forethought.

And then there are the cases of people who are making a serious effort, but who fail anyway. They're a lot less likely to fail if they use a gun than if they use some prozac and vodka.

|3.12.07 @ 12:28PM|#

I am also pro NRA and ACLU and then other times I just want to bitch slap them both the same for the things they do. For to long the NRA has conceded to laws just for the sake of having another law. What we have ended up with are law after law that no one bothers to enforce. How many laws can you have against such a select group of items exactly.

I see NJ now wants to ban the .50 cal like Commifornia did. After all the .50 cal has been used in NO assaults or robberies or murders so they must act now to stop the violence. Shame to because everyone knows most criminals first choice in weapons is a 25-30 pound rifle that is 4 feet long or more and costs $1.50 a round to shoot, oh and it kicks like a mule. Yep first choice for crooks the $2000+ .50 cal.

If DC was so safe before with gun restrictions why then do the politicians feel the need to have so much ARMED security to protect them? Only they are worthy of protection with guns, the rest of us mere mortals just need to call the police and wait.

I am about to by a new house on a piece of property at which will sit a sign that reads "Trespassers will be shot! Survivors will be shot again!"

Kap|3.12.07 @ 12:45PM|#

Lamar & R C,

Gun deaths in the US are about 1/3 murder, 2/3 suicide, and

Kap|3.12.07 @ 12:47PM|#

Lamar & R C,

[squirrels don't like them < signs]

Gun deaths in the US are about 1/3 murder, 2/3 suicide, and <1% accident.

The suicide rate in the US is roughly equivalent to the UK. Continental Europe (esp. France & Nordic) tends to have much higher suicide rates than the US, I forget the exact ratio. Let's not even talk about gun-free Japan.

So if suicide is a function of culture and not available technology, why not homicide?

|3.12.07 @ 1:33PM|#

NM:

"Seems like you were using the wrong defense.
Drawing your gun doesn't work as well as controlling the knife."

That was the point of the drill, and it serves to highlight how dangerous an aggressor with a knife is at close range against anyone at all who is in the unfortunate situation of having to react.

"Still easier than defending against the gun... that equalizer effect again. Someone who will rush you while asleep in order to kill you, can stand outside your door and shoot you before you wake up. "

The question asked was 'is a healthy guy with a knife just as well off?' I submitted, no.

Also, most bad guys can't shoot. Part of the nice thing about a gun based conflict on both sides is that you are replacing physical ability with a trainable discipline. In particular, you'd be crazy to prefer drunk angry guy with a knife at 5' over drunk angry guy with a gun at 20'. If you are physically less able, you have a great chance of winning the gunfight but almost no chance of avoiding the stab.

"Right around 99% of people will never be the victim of a violent crime...even in the most violent neighborhoods in America."

1% of, what, 270,000,000 is a lot of people. I also wonder how this jibes with the notion that something like one in five women report having been sexually assaulted.

|3.12.07 @ 1:34PM|#

Joe, I have no doubt that some people are dead who wouldn't be if they hadn't had a gun to commit suicide with.

I just think its a pretty small number, because the ones who are serious about it will get it right sooner or later, whatever their preferred method, and the ones who aren't serious about it will use something else. Sure, there's some leakage around the edges, but I think its probably pretty marginal.

mediageek|3.12.07 @ 1:48PM|#

Well, and it begs the following question:

How much should we restrict people's rights in order to keep a few people from killing themselves with a particular method.

|3.12.07 @ 2:43PM|#

I haven't had time yet to read the whole thread, but has anyone yet mentioned that Gary Kleck did a study of the suicide rates of every American city with a population of 100,000 or more, and found that while gun availability could affect the means by which people committed suicide, it did not detectably affect suicide rates. Where guns were not as readily available, people simply chose other means of suicide.

BTW, I once saw a table of the effectiveness of different methods of suicide. Suicides by gun are only about 60-something (65%?) successful. Standing on a chair and hanging yourself was within a few percentage points of being as effective (63?). (This is from memory.)

LarryA|3.12.07 @ 2:58PM|#

Look at British crime stats. Less guns equals less gun crime, but more knife crime.

Gunlaw Britain on the side of the criminals
By Simon Heffer, 17/02/2007
"It is one of the great paradoxes of modern life that since the clamp-down on gun ownership after the hideous massacre at Dunblane in 1996, there are far more firearms in circulation than ever: and most appear to be in the hands of criminals, held without the knowledge of the police. The law actively persecutes licensed gun owners, while apparently letting the unlicensed ones run out of control." http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/02/17/do1703.xml

Gunpoint robberies soar
Press Association, January 25, 2007 1:18 PM

"The number of robberies involving firearms jumped 10% last year, including a 9% rise in street robberies at gunpoint, official figures have revealed.
"Home Office statistics also showed a 46% leap in residential robberies involving a firearm in 2005/06.
"Criminals used guns in a record 645 cases of residential robbery in England and Wales - up 204 on the previous year and four times the level recorded in 2000/01.
"The number of street robberies at gunpoint increased from 1,311 in 2004/05 to 1,439 last year.
"The overall number of gun robberies - including those which took place outdoors or targeted shops, garages, post offices, banks and homes - was 4,120 compared with 3,674 in the previous 12 months.
"Handguns were the most commonly used firearm in robberies, reported in 2,888 cases."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6370387,00.html

The increased ease of suicide by gun (just one squeeae of the trigger), it's irrerversability once the act is undertake (no sticking a finger down your throat or opening the garage door once you've pulled the trigger) and its high level of lethality greatly increase the "success" rate of suicide attempts.

Unless you count "attempted" incidents where a potential suicide loads the gun, puts it in his mouth, and decides not to squeeze the trigger.

The difference between someone who considers suicide with a gun and many other methods is that those using gas, pills, poison, etc. will take the substance even when they are still ambivalent, thinking they can always call for help. People who shoot themselves believe that pulling the trigger is final. (It isn't. About 35% do survive suicide gunshots. It's amazing how many people don't really know where vital organs are.)

Therefore I believe there are far fewer accidents among ambivalent suicides when firearms are involved.

More guns = more crime

Gun control laws are designed to restrict legal ownership of firearms, with the excuse that this will somehow restrict criminal access to firearms.

If you concentrate on legally-owned guns in the U.S., however:
1. The crime rate among blacks is far higher than average, even though they have the lowest rate of legal gun ownership of any race.
2. Crime is highest in the inner cities, lower in the suburbs, and lowest in rural areas; the exact opposite is true of legal firearm ownership.
3. As age increases the crime rate goes down, and legal gun ownership goes up.
4. Every year since 1997 the Brady Campaign has issued a report grading the states on gun control laws. There is no relationship between the grades and the level of crime in the states. There are numerous "F" states with very low crime rates, and "A" states with very high crime rates.

|3.12.07 @ 9:22PM|#

NM

From the VPC link, 2nd line (between License to Kill and Table of Contents), in bold:

More Guns, More Crime

Is that just too damn plain obvious for you?

Clearly this is not the case. As shown in news articles and in the VPC's License to Kill studies, concealed handgun license holders are arrested for a multitude of offenses, including violent crimes such as murder, kidnapping, and sexual assault.

What the VPC does not say in that study is that the arrest (let alone conviction) rate for CHL-holders is a fraction of the general population. Are they perfect? Of course not, no group of human beings is. Interesting question might be on how they compare to police.

|3.12.07 @ 9:28PM|#

Hey NM, here's another from Harvard. Looks like they aren't as careful as you claim - tying TOTAL homicide rate to rate of gun ownership.

|3.12.07 @ 10:12PM|#

Tom Tomorrow maundered:
"Keeping a gun at home to protect against robbers seems like an especially silly idea in a big city where the police can arrive at the scene in less time than it takes to open your gun safe, load your gun, and confront the burglar."

With this, Tom proves that he has never actually studied the issue.

A few minutes listening to a police scanner will kill off the "cops will get there fast" fallacy. Dispatch lag -- the time between your picking up the phone and the broadcast to patrol cars -- runs a minimum of one minute, and that assumes that there are two people on your call (the calltaker and the dispatcher) with nothing else going on. I've never seen a city like that . . .and then, once the cops are dispatched, unless they are right next door, it will take several minutes to get one into your neighborhood -- and they aren't going to come blasting up and park on your lawn, they are going to wait for backup, set up a perimeter, and then make contact with the house. Our elapsed time at this point is between 5 and 10 minutes. Unless you are really really really incompetent, you will have your gun loaded and either drive off or contain the burglar.

Or, maybe, SHOOT the SOB, if necessary.

However, when I go to bed, my pistol is loaded and the pistol safe is unlocked. All I have to do is reach in and I'm ready for defense.

Guy Montag|3.12.07 @ 10:16PM|#

juris imprudent,

What the VPC does not say in that study is that the arrest (let alone conviction) rate for CHL-holders is a fraction of the general population. Are they perfect? Of course not, no group of human beings is. Interesting question might be on how they compare to police.

Actually, they covered that as I quoted from them earlier: Most concealed carry states keep information on the crimes committed by their concealed carry license holders hidden.

See? The lower arrest/conviction rate amoung CHP holders is just because the "shall issue" States conspire to issue to rapists and drunk drivers and hide their infractions. In league with who, I do not know.

|3.12.07 @ 10:30PM|#

The defense issue is never as cut-and-dried as you think.

Consider Pearl Harbor. When you have surprise on your side, a 3-ton airplane can sink a ship weighing several thousand tons . . .using a 250-lb bomb.

|3.13.07 @ 1:49AM|#

"If you concentrate on legally-owned guns in the U.S., however:
1. The crime rate among blacks is far higher than average, even though they have the lowest rate of legal gun ownership of any race."

Joe, oh Joe, we have a racist amongst us. He said "blacks".

LarryA|3.13.07 @ 12:44PM|#

Actually, they covered that as I quoted from them earlier: Most concealed carry states keep information on the crimes committed by their concealed carry license holders hidden.

Texas doesn't. There's a study here with a very interesting chart.

Note that even though men are five or six times more likley to be arrested than women, men who have CHLs are about half as likely to be arrested as women who don't.

OTOH, one reason the Texas Legislature told the Texas Department of Public Safety to quit posting so much data on their website is because VPC was intentionally incorrectly citing it.

Current Texas conviction rates are at http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

|3.17.07 @ 1:28AM|#

On a dead thread.

Juris...
From the article about the Harvard study you link to...

Read it.

The association between firearm prevalence and homicide was driven by gun-related homicide rates; non-gun-related homicide rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership."

Notice this phrasing. Notice that non-gun related homicide rates were not associated. They are talking about gun crime. Can't you read. The article continues.

"These results suggest that it is easier for potential homicide perpetrators to obtain a gun in states where guns are more prevalent. "Our findings suggest that in the United States, household firearms may be an important source of guns used to kill children, women and men, both on the street and in their homes," said Miller."

Again. This sounds like they are talking about gun crime.

Pull your head out.