Let the "I lurvs my gun" shitstorm begin!

Does anyone do unbiased statisical analysis anymore? Is it any wonder why people are so cynical and confused these days when the same survey can be used by both sides of a debate to back up their claims.

Fewer guns lead to fewer gun-related crimes. I'm not confused.

thats what you think

[Edited on Feb 25, 2004 by sirpsychosexy]

I'm *so* not going head 1st into this one, but I can't resist saying:
Criminals, by very definition, do not obey laws.
So you can make all the laws you want about everything under the sun, and for the most part, nothing will change. And I feel confident saying that any decent statistician can make pretty much any study say what he's getting paid to make it say.

Now I would support the statement:
Fewer guns in CRIMINAL hands leads to fewer gun-related crimes.


Gah! I swore to myself I wasn't going to get into this!!!
(plugs his ears and wanders off)
LAA! LAA! LAAA! I'm not listening!!

To the ill informed and intention grounded pseudo-intellectuals of the new internationalism gun control is a black and white issue. "Less guns = less crime", complete garbage. You cannot do simplistic comparisons. And John Lott is a journalist and contrary to leftist character assassination his original intention was to show the opposite correlation than what he found. The facts being irrefutable. The facts also are that in every country in which gun ownership has been severely restricted and/or banned it has been against the will of the public. Take for example England, their first restrictions were enforced in the 1920's. This wasn't because of some apocalyptic crimespree, but from the looming threat of social and political upheaval from class tensions. At the time London was the largest city in the world and had a murder rate of three per year. The fact is the second amendment is clear and unequivocal. It is a check against tyranny. The military doesn't protect us as they claim. If they did they woundn't be 10.000 miles away fighting third world peoples. We also wouldn't have the Department of Homeland Security if this were true. After the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, General Yamato said that an invasion of the mainland United States would be impossible because there would be "a gun waiting behind every blade of grass". This in reference to the populace's gun ownereship and not the military. Our standing army being miniscule at the time. I for one will never give up my right to keep and bear arms and only have time, false rhetoric, indifference, and ignorance to blame for the erosion of this and all my other constitutionally "guaranteed" rights. The constitution being a 19th century vestige of a United States and Western Civilization before it's self-inflicted decline.

[Edited on Feb 25, 2004 8:22AM]

Oh my.

Japan is coming for your guns.

And the Queen too.

What is next?

NRA saying, "Al Quaeda is around the corner, protect yourself with a Glock"?

I believe in restriction of a government's ability to limit citizen's access to guns, yet at the same time, regulation of gun ownership (in a sensible and efficient manner) is no big deal.

Why is it that the NRA folks are fighting mad about gun ownership (fear the black helicopters).. yet they say little about Total Information Awareness or the Patriot Act? You would think that they would be afraid of any infringement on their rights by the highly centralized Federal Government? Sometimes I wonder if the politics of this are simple due to the simple participants.

"Give me ma guns. Saddam started WWII and knows Ossama, so Rumsfeld is cool and has the biggest guns ya".

I am with you Unraveled. Just like fewer penises equal lower pregnancies.

You have a good point. If I were Pres. of the NRA and the issue of TIA and the Patriot Act popped up then I would stifle my objection, stay the course on the Second Amendment, and let the ACLU address the civil liberties issues.

Better to be a big fish in a small pond than a big fish in a big pond. Why elicit more public and private criticism in an area that you charter does not cover?

That being said, I agree that gun regulation is good. I am slightly concerned that non-citizens are not prevented from purchasing firearms in the United States. Maybe we should address that but no one seems to have noticed it yet.

Ummmm, no, John Lott is an economist and statician. He has been a rabid pro gun libertarian since before we wrote the book

In Lotts case the facts were susbtantially manufactured

Then, if they don't change anything, what's the point of having any laws at all?

Holy GOD I'm glad to hear about that. That was an infuriating yet increasingly humorous incident. From "Oh, I didn't check my info at that library" to "A water main burst and destroyed my notes."

I talk with a lot of gun nuts who think the NRA is completely spineless in defense of gun ownership rights, and they rant and rave about how the Patriot Act is an abomination and the war on terrorism is an excuse to roll back civil rights, how the government's using terrorism as an excuse to establish a police state.

This is a widespread opinion I see a lot of places where I talk with (other) gun nuts. You haven't heard these complaints and concerns because you probably don't talk much with gun nuts. Or is that presumptuous of me?

[Edited on Feb 25, 2004 10:41AM]

Let's try to keep this thread down to 16 pages ok?

There is no point to simply writing down a law. If you don't actually enforce it, it's words on a paper that mean nothing. We don't need more laws against handguns because anything BAD you can do with a handgun is ALREADY illegal. If they want to solve anything, we need to be enforcing what we have on the books already, because as I state again:
CRIMINALS BY VERY DEFINITION, DO NOT OBEY LAWS

Oh god, No, no. No. NO! I am NOT going to get dragged into this one, stupid Mael (kicks self) why do you have to click on the link! WHY!
This is an issue already decided, every person already knows their position on gun control and nothing anyone else says is going to change that.

[Edited on Feb 25, 2004 by Maelphaedor]