State Law v. Federal Regulation

[brunoflipper]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

The amendment to the Constitution happened a long time ago and didn't anticipate today's weapons.

You have the right to own a musket.

Luckily, the Constitution says zip about owning a rapier and quarterstaff.

En garde, Robespierre!  Defend your honor!

In other news, the tragedy of gun violence is visited on the youngest and hippest of our Founding Fathers.(warning: some language is NSFW)

god how i love drunk history...

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Wevus, the facts support neither contention.  In areas where stricter gun control has been implemented there has usually been little change in crime statistics.  When change does occur it goes in either direction.

Australia is often cited as an example of gun control causing crime. However, while the trend of violent crime is up 7% since their more stringent gun control went into effect the data lacks both correlation and explanation.  7% is a common deviation over the course of a few years - did the economy pick up, where additional measures taken?  The prime example, Australia, really only says gun control increased and violent crime edged up 7% in the year following.
(google Australia & gun control for all sorts of takes if you want, but finding an unbiased source is difficult and subject to opinion)

San Francisco instituted some of the strictest gun control measures in 2004 and much of the bay area followed the lead.  However, it failed to result in a decrease in violent crime and the area has had a rash of murders in 2007 and a flurry so far this year.  But again, it really can't be attributed to people not having firearms.

In the nation as a whole the Brady bill has not shown a significant correlation to gun violence.  The number of firearm murders committed by unregistered guns remains the same, the availability of firearms has not changed.  The much heralded assault weapons did next to nothing either for the legal availability, the illegal trade of, nor the use of assault rifles.

Sorry, but the fact remains we are and always have been a violent culture.  Be it with muskets, hand guns, or trucks filled with farm supplies we find a way to kill each other.  The harder you make it for legally obtaining a firearm the more loopholes or illegal trades will occur.  I follow all firearm laws, ordinances, background checks and safety recommendations - but most criminals do not.  

So at the end of the day who does gun control effect?  I'll give you a hint, criminals will probably just keep breaking the law.

See, CF, I was following you all the way through until you did the exact same thing.  Your last sentence is the same assumption that Gaspar makes, with nothing much to back it up but that folksy conventional wisdom again. It pretty much is contradicted by the five paragraphs previous.

Why wouldn't gun control measures reduce the total number of guns in circulation?  Both for citizens and criminals?  Isn't it fair to assume that the number of guns in aggregate would go down? So while your access to guns decreases, so might criminal access also decrease?

[FOTD]

Who here is a member of The InfraGard?

http://www.progressive.org/mag_rothschild0308

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Wevus, the facts support neither contention.  In areas where stricter gun control has been implemented there has usually been little change in crime statistics.  When change does occur it goes in either direction.

Australia is often cited as an example of gun control causing crime. However, while the trend of violent crime is up 7% since their more stringent gun control went into effect the data lacks both correlation and explanation.  7% is a common deviation over the course of a few years - did the economy pick up, where additional measures taken?  The prime example, Australia, really only says gun control increased and violent crime edged up 7% in the year following.
(google Australia & gun control for all sorts of takes if you want, but finding an unbiased source is difficult and subject to opinion)

San Francisco instituted some of the strictest gun control measures in 2004 and much of the bay area followed the lead.  However, it failed to result in a decrease in violent crime and the area has had a rash of murders in 2007 and a flurry so far this year.  But again, it really can't be attributed to people not having firearms.

In the nation as a whole the Brady bill has not shown a significant correlation to gun violence.  The number of firearm murders committed by unregistered guns remains the same, the availability of firearms has not changed.  The much heralded assault weapons did next to nothing either for the legal availability, the illegal trade of, nor the use of assault rifles.

Sorry, but the fact remains we are and always have been a violent culture.  Be it with muskets, hand guns, or trucks filled with farm supplies we find a way to kill each other.  The harder you make it for legally obtaining a firearm the more loopholes or illegal trades will occur.  I follow all firearm laws, ordinances, background checks and safety recommendations - but most criminals do not.  

So at the end of the day who does gun control effect?  I'll give you a hint, criminals will probably just keep breaking the law.

See, CF, I was following you all the way through until you did the exact same thing.  Your last sentence is the same assumption that Gaspar makes, with nothing much to back it up but that folksy conventional wisdom again. It pretty much is contradicted by the five paragraphs previous.

Why wouldn't gun control measures reduce the total number of guns in circulation?  Both for citizens and criminals?  Isn't it fair to assume that the number of guns in aggregate would go down? So while your access to guns decreases, so might criminal access also decrease?

I don't know, but I would assume most violent criminals with a deep love of firearms don't go to Academy and fill out the proper paperwork to purchase a gun like I do.  So I would then logically assume that gun control measures would make it more difficult for me to own a gun but would not have a very significant effect on criminals obtaining a gun.  Just a hunch.

And there are some very direct correlation's.  Switzerland for instance.  Nearly every male gets to keep his service rifle (a simi-auto assault rifle), and a 9mm pistol.  They have the highest gun ownership rate in the world, and the lowest crime rate in the world.  But I assume those could be completely unrelated statistics. Basically, everyone owns a machine gun![]



A few more Hollow aphorisms for you:


This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future! – Adolph Hitler [1935] The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany.

The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, bows, spears, firearms or other types of arms. The possession of these elements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues, and tends to permit uprising. – Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Japanese Shogun, August 29, 1558


The police can't stop an intruder, mugger, or stalker from hurting you. They can pursue him only after he has hurt or killed you. Protecting yourself from harm is your responsibility, and you are far less likely to be hurt in a neighborhood of gun-owners than in one of disarmed citizens – even if you don't own a gun yourself. – Harry Browne


Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins. – Sammy "The Bull" Gravano, whose testimony convicted John Gotti


Try to halt violence by restricting gun ownership and you won't halt violence. But you will create entire classes of new criminals – people who make paperwork errors, violate technical specification of the law, or rebel against the new restrictions. And you'll create new bureaus, new enforcement arms, new prisons to punish them. You'll make hordes of lawyers and bureaucrats very happy. Organized criminals will be grateful to the naive moral crusaders ("useful idiots") as they profit by selling an illegal product. And ordinary street criminals will bless fools, legislators, and "leaders" for making their job so much safer. – JPFO's "Bill of RIghts Sentinel", Fall 2001.

[cannon_fodder]

Wevus, I did not say that it makes criminal's jobs easier and in fact very clearly stated that the data seems to indicate other factors are more important than having firearms or banning firearms int he prevention of violent crime.

In recognition of that fact that it seems to have no effect I mused:

quote:So at the end of the day who does gun control effect?

Under your assumption of the total number of firearms going down, that result would be achieved by law abiding people following any new law that restricted ownership rights. Meanwhile, criminal will continue to ignore gun control measures.  Thus, under your framework the statement is entirely accurate as law abiding citizens give up firearms and criminals continue to be criminals.

How does that contradict any statistic that implies gun control measures have little effect on violent crime rates, especially in light of the fact that I argued for a lack of correlation in the statistics to begin with?

If you disagree with the general premise that criminals are unlikely to follow gun control measures while most citizens would - then we have a disagreement.  Otherwise I fail to see a logical disagreement between our stances.
- - -

and, FYI, there are plenty of firearms both in this country and in the world to supply global black markets, war zones, gangs, terrorists, and criminals.  It is unlikely any action in the United States to limit gun ownership would have a meaningful impact domestically for a generation (I routinely fire rifles from WWI with ammo from 1934), at which point illegal arms dealers would gladly fill any gap in demand for criminals.  Keep in mind, a lack of supply inherently raises prices to the point of making it worth someones while to go into business.

What I'm getting at is I don't see supply side economics working in America's favor to reduce violence from firearms within my lifetime.