I agree that Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire border Massachusetts and that they place less restrictions on gun ownership. I certainly don't see how the logical conclusion is that more Federal laws are required, based on those facts. Using your figures for number of murders by firearm per 100,000 people, Vermont and New Hampshire, at least, compare favorably to Massachusetts.
I don't see a positive or negative correlation between the murder rate and gun control laws. If there is one, it seems well camouflaged by a multitude of other factors.
No it means that population density is a factor in crime, what did you think it meant? In north dakota you have to find someone to kill them. The fact that with much lower population density that the rate is as high as it is means more people as a percentage of population are looking.
The part that does not include "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" Read the constitution and you will see no mention of private militias, only gov't ones. No mention of defense against crime. either. If the White house wants to go to the supreme ct with their bs, let 'em, probably get laughed out. strict constructionists have their bad points too
It is my opinion that if the whole country ran like mass, there would be less availability of guns to the criminal, and those who want them legally would still be able to get them. I agree with must permit in most cases I can think of. I think assault weapon bans are stupid, but probably legal. I think if you expect the Supreme Court to uphold a personal right to carry, I have a bridge to sell you. I do not feel safer when there is a gun in the room. I think if you got what you wanted, the police would need tanks to patrol the streets. I think if the left got what they wanted, I would need a tank to drive down the street. I think there is a big difference between restrict and deny. The only time I wish I had a gun is now so I could shoot the damn squirrel that thinks he is moving into my house. i think it is time to go home
Other states don't compare favorably. wasn't referring particularly to that article. Crime tends to occur in cities. Those states have no big cities, thus one would expect lower crime. with a density of less than
10 per square mile. it is tough to get within shooting distance of another person in N Dakota. With a density of nearly 800 per square mile it is tough to get out of shooting distance in Mass.
Tend to agree on the whole, twas the other side braggin that started it all out
Where did they bury the survivors then? Convicted felons cannot vote. So their political preferences don't seem that important.
Jim
================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================
I'd be very surprised if George Will has anything to say about it. The copyright was held by Newsweek (I've been saying Time; that's just age on my part, it was Newsweek). It may have reverted to him but it's still in their archives.
Here's what you can get from Newsweek archives for free. The rest will cost you $2.95.
November 15, 1993 Newsweek Are We 'a Nation of Cowards'?
GEORGE F. WILL
JEFFREY SNYDER's TIMING IS EITHER PERFECT OR PERFECTLY awful. Just as there seems to be a coalescing consensus that the keys to controlling violent crime are more police and fewer guns, along comes Snyder to trouble the conscience of anyone who thinks so. In his essay 'A Nation of Cowards" in The Public Interest quarterly, he argues, with a potent blend of philosophy and fact, as follows: "Crime is rampant because the law-abiding, each of us, condone it, excuse it,...
This view is subject to change when a large, determined, violent criminal (or even a small, wormey creep), who has been pumping iron for the last 10 years in the pen, decides to bust your front door down. Or in any number of other circumstances where you cannot defend yourself or your loved ones with your bare hands, or any impromptu sticks, clubs, ect. readily within reach at the time. Or, when your loved ones are left to their own defenses, regardless of their age, strength or infirmity. With a firearm "in the room", my aging Mother has a fighting chance against the young, strong predator. Without it, we are planning the funeral. The same can be said for my much younger, and fit daughter. And a lot of other folks as well.
JTMcC, who feels much safer when there are multiple firearms in the room, manned by law abiding good guys that know how to shoot.
Not to delve further off topic . . . ah, what the heck, let's.
Who holds the rights to a magazine article? I'd assume that the magazine controls the copyright. Does the author retain any rights at all? Is it subject to negotiation (I'm thinking the author may want to have an anthology published down the road)? Are magazine or newspaper article copyrights the same as those for books?
Well, Ed, I've read a lot of your posts and the conclusion I came to was that you were in favor of ever more restrictive gun laws. If not, great. I can't help but notice that you are always on the "anti" side. If you have been sneaking pro-gun arguments into usenet, I haven't seen them.
-- Robert Sturgeon
formatting link
There are four types of homicide: felonious, accidental, justifiable,and praiseworthy.
Let's agree, for the moment, that gun laws have very little effect on crime rates. So why are you so all fired anxious to keep the current restrictive gun laws and perhaps make more of them? They aren't doing any good. They are infringing on my right to keep and bear arms. That harm is obviously not offset by any societal advantages.
-- Robert Sturgeon
formatting link
There are four types of homicide: felonious, accidental, justifiable,and praiseworthy.
Felons vote in chicago, jesse jackson makes frequent trips to cook county jail getting inmates registered to vote as was reported on chicago news broadcasts, there is video tape of his efforts.
His son is a democratic congressman for illinois, to bad there is no way to determine what percentage of his voter base are former cook county jail inmates, i bet they all support gun control as congressman jackson does.
"No man shall be debarred the use of arms. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Thomas Jefferson
It's not so much harm, you could further and say, "effort." Because I think many states do indeed expend a great deal of effort and taxpayer money on this topic, and apparently (if the statistics are to be belived) to no real great end.
I am sure if you press them very closely, you will get the answer, "yes our elephant repellent works great, we have very few elephants here."
Jim
================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================
"There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.
Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms
formatting link
Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually."
As to side arms being used in drivebys..one would assume you are unaware that the majority of such are done with handguns, with a lesser number being done with :
Mossberg Mod 60 22 rifle as the most used 22 rifle
Various 12 ga. shotguns (with the Mossberg 500 series being the most commonly used
3, a very small number of fully automatic weapons (unlawful ones btw)
Now the crux of the matter is:
Is that a true statement or not. Yes or no?
Gunner
"No man shall be debarred the use of arms. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Thomas Jefferson
First, what are "liberalized" concealed carry laws? They are a set of requirements, when met by an applicant, require the issuance of a concealed carry permit, which allows a permit holder to carry a gun (concealed) in public places. These requirements may consist of a license fee, a safety training program or exam, fingerprinting, a "clean" record, no history of mental illness, etc. In other words it is not left to the discretion of local authorities to decide whether or not to issue a permit. Liberalized concealed carry laws are more often referred to as "shall-issue concealed carry weapons" laws.
In 1987, when Florida enacted such legislation, critics warned that the "Sunshine State" would become the "Gunshine State." Contrary to their predictions, homicide rates dropped faster than the national average. Further, through 1997, only one permit holder out of the over
350,000 permits issued, was convicted of homicide. (Source: Kleck, Gary Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, p 370. Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.) If the rest of the country behaved as Florida's permit holders did, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate in the world.
David Kopel, Research Director at the Independence Institute comments on Florida's concealed carry experience:
"What we can say with some confidence is that allowing more people to carry guns does not cause an increase in crime. In Florida, where
315,000 permits have been issued, there are only five known instances of violent gun crime by a person with a permit. This makes a permit-holding Floridian the cream of the crop of law-abiding citizens, 840 times less likely to commit a violent firearm crime than a randomly selected Floridian without a permit." ("More Permits Mean Less Crime..." Los Angeles Times, Feb. 19, 1996, Monday, p. B-5)
John Lott and David Mustard, in connection with the University of Chicago Law School, examining crime statistics from 1977 to 1992 for all U.S. counties, concluded that the thirty-one states allowing their residents to carry concealed, had significant reductions in violent crime. Lott writes, "Our most conservative estimates show that by adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by
5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. If those states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them back then, citizens might have been spared approximately 1,570 murders,
4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies. To put it even more simply criminals, we found, respond rationally to deterrence threats... While support for strict gun-control laws usually has been strongest in large cities, where crime rates are highest, that's precisely where right-to-carry laws have produced the largest drops in violent crimes."
formatting link
Today, there are only 5 states that do not have a right-to-carry system.
States with right-to-carry laws have lower overall violent crime rates, compared to states without right-to-carry laws. In states whose laws respect the citizen's right-to-carry guns for self defense the total violent crime is 13% lower, homicide is 3% lower, robbery is 26% lower and aggravated assault is 7% lower. (Data: Crime in the United States 1996, FBI Uniform Crime Reports)
Right-to-carry license holders are more law-abiding than the general public. In Florida, for example, the firearm crime rate among license holders, annually averaging only several crimes per 100,000 licensees, is a fraction of the rate for the state as a whole. Since the carry law went into effect in 1987, less than 0.02% of Florida carry permits have been revoked because of gun crimes committed by license holders. (Florida Dept. of State) Research reports printed in "More Guns, Less Crime", John R. Lott, Jr., the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago, examined data ranging from gun ownership polls to FBI crime rate data for each of the nation's 3.045 counties over a 1977 too 1994 time span. Lott's research amounts to the largest data set that has ever been put together for any study of crime, let alone for the study of gun control. Among Prof. Lott's findings:
? While arrest and conviction rates being the most important factors influencing crime.... non discretionary concealed-handgun laws are also important, and they are the most cost-effective means of reducing crime.
? Non discretionary or "shall-issue" carry permit laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. They reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals can't tell which potential victims are armed, being able to defend themselves. Secondly, victims who do have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves. Concealed carry laws deter crime because they increase the criminal's risk of doing business.
? States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest decreases in violent crime. And, it is high crime, urban areas, and neighborhoods with large minority populations that experience the greatest reductions in violent crime when law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns.
? There is a strong relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate--as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates.
? For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3%, rape by 2% and robberies by more than
2%.
? Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but the effect is especially pronounced for women. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about three to four times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the rate for men.
? The benefits of concealed handguns are not limited to those who carry them. Others get a free ride from the crime fighting efforts of their fellow citizens.
? The benefits of right-to-carry are not limited to people who share the characteristics of those who carry the guns. The most obvious example of this "halo" effect, is the drop in murders of children following the adoption of non discretionary laws. Arming older people not only may provide direct protection to these children, but also causes criminals to leave the area.
? The increased presence of concealed handguns "does not raise the number of accidental deaths or suicides from handguns."
Gunner
"No man shall be debarred the use of arms. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Thomas Jefferson
Are you not aware of the efforts of the Democratic party restoring voting rights to felons upon completion of sentences?
Or the attempts of the Democrats prior to the 2000 election to register as many prisoners as possible?
I notice a deafening and sudden quiet when I ask a Dem about restoring a felons right to own a gun upon completion of sentence however...
odd huh?
Btw..the right of a felon to vote, varies from state to state.
Gunner
"No man shall be debarred the use of arms. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Thomas Jefferson
Read a little slower- I'm talking about using a sidearm to fend off a drive-by. Not start one.
If you mean "25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy. However, 4 out of 5 US murders are committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?" the whole point is that the statement draws conclusions it can't support- that open carry lowers the murder rate.
Open carry will not protect you from a drive-by or being run down by a drunk driver or from being stabbed in the back while you sleep or having your house torched while you're in it or any of a hundred different ways humans kill off other human beings. That's a true statement.
Actually CCW holders have a lower crime rate than police officers and police shoot the wrong person 300% more than do CCW holders.
Gunner
"No man shall be debarred the use of arms. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Thomas Jefferson
Whether you see me as advocating something about guns or not, Robert, depends on whether you see the world through an ideological filter that screens out half of the things that make up the whole picture.
I don't sneak gun arguments of either kind into usenet. Guns aren't something that I would bother to debate about. This discussion could as well be about safety belts on cars, as far as I'm concerned.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.