It Begins. Holder Announces Plan To Ban Semi-Auto Guns

[IShopAtPublix]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

Even as you back peddle you're living in unsupported by fact fantasy land. Gang killings have been crashing lower in numbers for over a decade. Los Angeles County had one third the number of murders last year then in the mid 90's zenith of it's Crips vs. Bloods days.

Of course being the irony proof dullard you seem to be you can't even connect these dots: In L.A. the largest criminal class is now illegal immigrants. So I guess you suppose those whose very existence in America violates Federal law are a bet to obey firearms prohibition. I'd make a pretty strong argument that an AMERICAN CITIZEN living in L.A. should be on legal gun footing with ALIENS. Gee guys bring drugs across the border but Lord knows they wouldn't dream of smuggling in guns......

Actually, most guns used by Mexican druglords are produced and paid for in the USA. Mexico is hell on Earth precisely because of availability of guns (produced in USA) and the inability of Mexican government to suppress the violence.

When guns are available as easily as cigarette packs it is obvious everyone and their dog will have them. Demagogues use this an excuse and switch cause&effect by saying "well since all criminals have them, it is only natural law abiding citizens have them as well".


Dealing with people like Pabst only reminds why I have the deepest contempt and hatred for the republican party and everything it stands for.

 

[nevadan]

quote from I ShopAtPublix:
In the Wild West, despite almost everyone having a gun, shoot outs happened on a regular basis and sheriffs got shot rather frequently.

Do you have any evidence for that statement other than the movies?

Historian Richard Shenkman largely attributes this to the legacy of those reliably-violent Western films. "Many more people have died in Hollywood Westerns than ever died on the real Frontier…n the real Dodge City, for example, there were just five killings in 1878, the most homicidal year in the little town's Frontier history: scarcely enough to sustain a typical two-hour movie." .....
As with Dodge City, the excitement in the Old West in general has been much overstated. All the big cattle towns of Kansas combined saw a total of 45 murders during the period of 1870-1885. Dodge City alone saw 15 people die violently from 1876–1885—an average of 1.5 per year. Deadwood, South Dakota and Tombstone, Arizona (home of the O.K. Corral), during their worst years of violence saw four and five murders respectively. Vigilante violence appears to not have been much worse.

According to Dykstra and Richard M. Brown, while the Kansas code gave mayors the power to call a vigilante group from all the men in the town who ranged in ages from 18–50, it seems, at least in Kansas, that it was rarely done. In a span of 38 years, Kansas had only 19 vigilante movements that accounted for 18 deaths. In addition, between 1876 and 1886, no one was lynched or hanged illegally in Dodge City.

http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1449

This article has a lengthy list of citations that dispute your claim.

 

[nevadan]

Tigerjaw,

One of the best arguments for gun ownership also comes from Florida. Florida was the first state in the Union to legalize concealed carry laws for ordinary citizens. At the time of its passage the anti gun crowd railed against it proclaiming that the Florida would become the modern day equivalent of the OK Corral. Carnage would be the inevitable result of so stupid and irresponsible legislation.

What actually happened was that violent crime went down. One unexpected uptick in crime though was against foreign tourists. Inexplicably, innocent visitors from abroad became the target of criminals. No explanation could be given until a few perpetrators were caught. It turns out that after the law was passed and the possibility that a mark just might be carrying a weapon it made sense to find a group of people who could be reliably targeted. People in rented cars, which at that time those cars had company logos on them, could presumably be expected to contain tourists who would be unarmed. Criminals may be less than rocket scientists but they can calculate those odds. Hence, a spate of tourist targeted crime until the rental companies took their banners from the rental fleet.
An armed citizen is a good deterrent to crime. Any inmate will tell you that they prefer things as easy as possible. Facing someone that might be able to kill them is not something they will readily seek.

 

[Tigerjaw]

Quote from nevadan:

Do you have any evidence for that statement other than the movies?


http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1449

This article has a lengthy list of citations that dispute your claim.

Nevadan - thank you for the link. I am a bit of a fan of history, especially the history of the Old West. So, I just had to reply even though I swore off this thread as too tempting a way for me to procrastinate from doing my tax work. The real history is so much more fascinating than the Hollywood baloney that many people seem to actually believe today.
I bet many people believe that it was common for men to line up on the street for a 'shoot out' just like in all those Clint Eastwood movies ! I bet they still believe that total fraud Ward Churchill who claimed that the powers that be gave the native peoples blankets infected with the small pox virus in order to wipe them out !
Thanks for the link. I'm afraid those that should read it won't - - wouldn't want to let historical evidence, statistics, or facts interfere with strongly held beliefs or what some ivory tower prof told them. Regards, - - -

 

[Cutten]

Quote from saxon:

All kidding aside, Obama is on record as holding the opinion that the 2nd amendment does indeed imply the right of gun ownership.

The only remaining question is: What kinds of guns or arms?

As with the rest of the Constitution (where things are not spelled out in detail), I think you have to apply a "reasonableness" test to that question.

"Anything goes" is not the answer.

It's pretty easy to prove that. If "armed" or "arms" has no limit, then why not include ICBMs, tank divisions, and tactical nukes in there? Thus there has to be some kind of limit. I would say a fair limit is where you have enough firepower to defend yourself against a plausible and defeatable enemy, but not so much as to pose an extreme risk to overall security. Tank divisions, artillery pieces, gunboats and warplanes are out. Shotguns, rifles are obviously fine, handguns IMO are fine (non-auto). Semi-auto IMO is essential for self-defence, and I would argue that full-auto is necessary to defend many homes such as mansions, detached houses, farms etc. In a situation like the LA riots, if a mob comes to burn your place down, you need to be able to take out 30, 50, 100 people if necessary (in reality you'd only need to kill a few before the rest ran). A semi-auto Glock isn't going to save you. And it's kinda hard to tote an AK-47 or more potent weapon around without drawing attention to yourself.

So I think a reasonable line to draw is full auto assault weapons allowed on your own property, but not to be carried out in public e.g. on the street, shops, stadiums etc. Semi-auto and single-shot allowed everywhere in public, subject to the decision of the property owner or relevant authority (that handles stuff like schools, hospitals, courts etc).

Note that in 19th century England, it was legal to own artillery pieces and Gatling guns, yet the murder rate was one of the lowest in recorded history, even lower than modern Switzerland. They had more liberal gun laws than Texas and were much safer. Now guns are almost totally gone and the murder rate is 4 times higher, despite the country being much richer and better policed than in 1900.

 

[Tigerjaw]

Quote from nevadan:

Tigerjaw,

One of the best arguments for gun ownership also comes from Florida. Florida was the first state in the Union to legalize concealed carry laws for ordinary citizens. At the time of its passage the anti gun crowd railed against it proclaiming that the Florida would become the modern day equivalent of the OK Corral. Carnage would be the inevitable result of so stupid and irresponsible legislation.

What actually happened was that violent crime went down. One unexpected uptick in crime though was against foreign tourists. Inexplicably, innocent visitors from abroad became the target of criminals. No explanation could be given until a few perpetrators were caught. It turns out that after the law was passed and the possibility that a mark just might be carrying a weapon it made sense to find a group of people who could be reliably targeted. People in rented cars, which at that time those cars had company logos on them, could presumably be expected to contain tourists who would be unarmed. Criminals may be less than rocket scientists but they can calculate those odds. Hence, a spate of tourist targeted crime until the rental companies took their banners from the rental fleet.
An armed citizen is a good deterrent to crime. Any inmate will tell you that they prefer things as easy as possible. Facing someone that might be able to kill them is not something they will readily seek.

Nevadan - - I just read your last post after you wrote this one on FL. The person making the gun control argument is from FL and asserts that violent crime is up there. I did a quick search and found news accounts from their local paper that also mentioned this. It was stated that the crimes were due to those associated with the illegal drug trade against each other. I also did a search of the FBI crime statistics and they state on their website that both violent crimes and murder was down from 2007 to 2008 in Orlando. So this is a disconnect that I find interesting. Are the papers wrong ? Are the FBI stats wrong or do they under report ? - - In either case, it seems to me that it would be best to form opinions based on facts rather than just assertions. I don't know what the truth is in regard to the situation in Orlando. - - -

 

[Cutten]

Quote from IShopAtPublix:

Actually, most guns used by Mexican druglords are produced and paid for in the USA. Mexico is hell on Earth precisely because of availability of guns (produced in USA) and the inability of Mexican government to suppress the violence.

When guns are available as easily as cigarette packs it is obvious everyone and their dog will have them. Demagogues use this an excuse and switch cause&effect by saying "well since all criminals have them, it is only natural law abiding citizens have them as well".


Dealing with people like Pabst only reminds why I have the deepest contempt and hatred for the republican party and everything it stands for.

Switzerland has more guns than Mexico, per capita, it seems pretty safe. 1900 UK had lots of guns and was safe - now it has none and is dangerous (check UK/London crime rates vs USA/NYC since 1990). In the US itself, the places with more guns e.g. Texas, Florida, are safer than places with less e.g. Washington DC.

If your stats backed your position I would be the first to concede the *facts* (although I think arms are a fundamental human right, even if they result in somewhat more deaths), but I don't see this clear link you claim.

 

[Tigerjaw]

Quote from IShopAtPublix:

Dealing with people like Pabst only reminds why I have the deepest contempt and hatred for the republican party and everything it stands for. [/B]

I abhor racism and racists. I happen to be a registered independent, not a Republican. (Don't even get me started on some of the policies of George Bush !) But look at the kind of bigoted emotional prejudiced generalizations that you just made. You undoubtedly feel theyre 'true'.
I'm afraid that underneath all your unsupported arguments is . . . feelings of contempt and hatred.

Its pretty tough to reason with that.

 

[Cutten]

Quote from Thunderdog:

If you are so brave and don't fear your fellow man (or woman), then why do you feel the need to own firearms?

Presumably he wants to be able to defend himself?

I'm not scared of a down day or even a down year in my trading, that doesn't mean I won't try to prevent it happening. I insure my house but don't sit up at night shaking at the thought of it burning down. Equally, someone does not have to be 'scared' of violence or the minority of dangerous individuals to want to take steps to protect themselves.

 

[nevadan]

More pesky statistics (from the government no less). This article was written by Florida Rep. Cliff Stearns, 6th Cong. Dist.

In research sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice, in which almost 2,000 felons were interviewed, 34% of felons said they had been “scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim" and 40% of these criminals admitted that they had been deterred from committing a crime out of fear that the potential victim was armed.

Allowing law-abiding people to arm themselves offers more than piece of mind for those individuals -- it pays off for everybody through lower crime rates. Statistics from the FBI’s Uniformed Crime Report of 2007 show that states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault rate and a 22% lower overall violent crime rate than do states without such laws. That is why more and more states have passed right-to-carry laws over the past decade.

In 1987, my home state of Florida enacted a “shall issue” law that has become the model for other states. Anti-gun groups, politicians and the news media predicted the new law would lead to vigilante justice and “Wild West” shootouts on every corner.

But since adopting a concealed carry law Florida’s total violent crime rate has dropped 32% and its homicide rate has dropped 58%. Floridians, except for criminals, are safer due to this law. And Florida is not alone. Texas’ violent crime rate has dropped 20% and homicide rate has dropped 31%, since enactment of its 1996 carry law.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30405