Why doesn't Gun Control or Right to Carry affect the crime rate significantly?

[deepdiver]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

While I cannot conclusively state whether Lott's data is correct or not, the links posted by AWD do not evidence it either way. The links provide opinions with further links to dubious data. LA Times op-ed pieces or narrowly and poorly researched articles from the very left-leaning St. Louis Post-Dispatch do not refutation make.

I just said you're free to go look up the academic journal articles yourself. I threw out some google links because that's all the effort and time I'm going to expend on an internet argument with people thatalready have their minds made up. I've seen the papers. I've read the papers. Thepapers exist. Thepapers are thorough. Lott is a fraud. Your refusal to research things yourself does not make them false.

What journals? What papers? Where did you find them? That is what citing to support your position is about. I live in a fairly small rural town with a pretty small public library and although there is a university nearby, access to non-students is limited. My effective research for such information is mostly limited to the internet unless I put in a large investment of time to drive several hours to a larger city with a much more comprehensive library, but then as you haven't provided any cites, it could be a waste of time as the "papers" may still not be available there and there is no way for me to find that out in advance. So, if they exist online, please provide links. If they exist in an inaccessible location for many of us, do you have access to scan and post? Or can you provide enough information that we could order the materials from a source or at least call ahead to find out if they are available in an out of town, several hours away location?

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

While I cannot conclusively state whether Lott's data is correct or not, the links posted by AWD do not evidence it either way. The links provide opinions with further links to dubious data. LA Times op-ed pieces or narrowly and poorly researched articles from the very left-leaning St. Louis Post-Dispatch do not refutation make.

I just said you're free to go look up the academic journal articles yourself. I threw out some goggle links because that's all the effort and time I'm going to expend on an internet argument with people thatalready have their minds made up. I've seen the papers. I've read the papers. Thepapers exist. Thepapers are thorough. Lott is a fraud. Your refusal to research things yourself does not make them false.

What journals? What papers? Where did you find them? That is what citing to support your position is about. I live in a fairly small rural town with a pretty small public library and although there is a university nearby, access to non-students is limited. My effective research for such information is mostly limited to the internet unless I put in a large investment of time to drive several hours to a larger city with a much more comprehensive library, but then as you haven't provided any cites, it could be a waste of time as the "papers" may still not be available there and there is no way for me to find that out in advance. So, if they exist online, please provide links. If they exist in an inaccessible location for many of us, do you have access to scan and post? Or can you provide enough information that we could order the materials from a source or at least call ahead to find out if they are available in an out of town, several hours away location?

As usual he is telling us that there is no actual support for his positions. He accuses me and others of taking the thread off topic, yet it is he who stated that it was lawful to curb my rights because my exercise of them makes him nervous. When asked to provide support for that position he deflects by saying thediscussion is off topic. Bull peckers! He raised it, it is not off topic.

This guy is just an opinionated idiot with no facts to back him up. He makes an assertion and then claims it is up to others to support there opposing position. In fact it is up to him to support his original assertions.

I have also noticed that when cornered (which is often) he deflects to another topic and refuses to address the original point. He cannot produce citations of actual data that discredit lott because there are none. He cannot provide cites to data supporting his contentions about curbing peoples rights because there are none. He can only cite the opinions of others that are equally unsupported. or suggest goggle search results. What a joke.

Unless and until he becomes intelligent (Not likely) he is not worth the time or the energy to engage, and he is not worthy of association with the members of this forum.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

les_aker wrote:

Orygunner wrote:

I think it comes down to risk management. Those that recognize the risks, choose to take steps to prevent them AND plan for the eventuality of their occurrance are the ones that will be much better off.

Where things usually run into trouble is when someone steps into the picture and decides s/he knows how everyone else should handle their own personal risk management, with enforcement provided by a convenient Nanny-State. Before you know it, you've got an unlimited number of idiots trying to impose their own brand of "safety" on everything in sight with an ever increasing application even when it's obvious that it's unnecessary and/or just not working. The most recent example I can think of is the proposed total ban on cell phone use in cars because forcing people to use hands-free devices didn't reduce accidents.

That's why the operative word in "Gun Control" is control.

I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Personal safety is just that, personal. Gun safety is taken as non-personal, which it is,by those in favor of gun control, hence their desire to control your behavior. What you deem as safe may not be what I deem as safe. That doesn't matter if your actions don't effect me, but your lack of safety with a gun very well could effect me in a big way. That's how gun control is justified.

That is prior restraint. I will be a criminal and punished for my crimes IF and WHEN my gun encroaches on you. I saw a good analogy in another thread on another forum. Though he is specifically addressing another person's comments, it still has to do with prior restraint and that part applies here.

... This is a terrible example and demonstrates your poor understanding of the doctrine of prior restraint. "Prior restraint" is the idea of stopping crimes before they happen. In the US, we try to avoid this. You have the right to free speech, and you are never punished until you abuse it. You can walk into a crowded theater, but you are not punished until after you shout "fire", because it is assumed that you will not do such a thing. Prior restraint would be like putting a muzzle on everyone who enters a theater, because one of them might shout "fire", just in case. Banning assault weapons or automatics is an example of prior restraint. Despite the fact that only two legally-owned machine guns have ever been used in a crime since 1934 (one was committed by a police officer), you are advocating a ban on full-autos because you are afraid someone might misuse one. That is prior restraint, and it violates US legal philosophy. ... CQ

Hope that helps clear up why it isn't justificationfor the government tocontrol guns simply because they givea personthe ability to harm people. Besides all of this, I think you'd find it much more effective if you approached your personal safety from the standpoint of YOU doing things that make you safer rather they trying to pass laws that"prevent" everyone elsefrom doing things that MIGHT endanger you. For example, carrying a handgun.

Last, I know that I didn't give citations for what I posted earlier regarding statistics, but I posted it to be more food for thought than an actual argument, like this post. Of course, I don't really see anything in this post that would require a citation anyway...

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

What journals? What papers? Where did you find them?

Read the links. You can't really be that dense.



I know fromarguing with you before that you're an intelligent person.You can't possibly expect meto waste my time and energy digging through9,000 pages of Gale search results looking forpapers that were published years ago. If the fact thatthe articlesI postedmentioned and referenced the papers isn't good enough proof for you, then you can do your ownsearching. I really don't care if youbelieve me or not.Had I actually taken the pains to find the papers, you'd just tellme you didn't like who wrote it sothey don't count, or you don't like the school they workfor, so it doesn'tcount, etc. Just like everyone did with thealready posted articles. This board is more predictable than the weather in SoCal.

Last, I know that I didn't give citations for what I posted earlier regarding statistics, but I posted it to be more food for thought than an actual argument, like this post. Of course, I don't really see anything in this post that would require a citation anyway...

"Prior restrain"? Again, drunk driving. Case closed.

The only things that need citation on this boardare things that go against the general consensus. Everything else is taken as natural law/fact.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

...SNIP

"Prior restrain"? Again, drunk driving. Case closed.
SNIP...

DUI is not the same thing at all, and your repeated return to it closes nothing.

There is no RIGHT to operate a car, therefore there is no right to operate a car drunk. There is most decidedly a RIGHT to own and carry a firearm. These two areas of law are NOT comparable. If you believe there is such a right show us the law that says driving is a right and NOTa privilege, or just admit that you are wrong.

If it is a waste of your time to support your positions by providing the information that lead you to your conclusions, then you have no business arguing with adults or sitting at the big table. Of course I am assuming that you actually do sit at the big table.

 

[bugly]

imported post

Funny thing, I live in the "bad" part of Tacoma, Washington, the part that had gang members shooting @ each other in drive-bys a few years back, but I like my little apartment, and here's why: I feel safe here. When I first moved in, I was carrying my .45 on my hip, as I generally do. It was a rather warm evening, still light out and I was getting a little bit tired, so I decided I would take off my windbreaker (which was concealing my .45), I totally forgot the sidearm was there, since it's always there and I'm used to it.
Anyway, I'm outside OC and my new neighbors are watching every move I make, I figured it was because I was new and not the same racial profile as most of the other neighbors (I don't care about that anyway..), wrong, it was because I was showing them all I was armed, and not intimidated by their presence. A few days went by, I forgot all about it, and one of the neighbors came up to me and asked about my piece, I was more than happy to let him take a look and we had a great little chat over self-defense. In the time I have been here, there have been many cars broken into, apartments raided and burglarized, and generally weird stuff happening all around me, but my car sits in the parking area, unlocked, with a decent stereo in it and some tools for doing bodywork, but yet, nobody messes with it or my g/f's car. Why do you think that is?
Deterrants work, gentlemen and ladies, bet your collective arses on it!

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Change takes time. Things don't happen instantaneously.

That's why I like OC. OC is demonstrably an effective personal deterrent.

The hypothetical societal-scale deterrent effect of CC has yet be be demonstrated convincingly using anything like valid methodology.

Sorry to fans of John Lott.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

What journals? What papers? Where did you find them?

Read the links. You can't really be that dense.

I am far from dense. I did read the links and the links in the links. They mostly went to op-ed pieces or news stories with obvious, provable bias. The column by Michelle Malkin and Lott's rebuttal was interesting. I haven't formed a final opinion on the matter which is why I asked for links to the papers you claim are out there or information as to source material so I can try to hunt down and review the material you used to reach your conclusion and see if I reach the same conclusion. You said you read it. You didn't say you have forgotten where you read it (which I know happens because it has happened to me). I'm just asking where you read it.

Or actually I was asking that. I am now past caring.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

If you believe there is such a right show us the law that says driving is a right and NOTa privilege, or just admit that you are wrong.

This was discussed already as well. Driving is included in right to liberty. Everything in this modern world requires operating an automobile. If you cannot drive, you are paralyzed as far as modern life is concerned. If you truly believe that driving is a government granted privilege, to be taken away at any time, you have a rude awakening coming when it happens. I thought of people like you when I read an article on CNBC from an analyst that thinks that privately owned cars should be fazed out in America. Then we can all rely public transportation. And since people like you think driving is a privilege that the government is so kind to extend to us, they'll have no problem taking it away.



No, you do have a right to drive, but you do not have a right to drive drunk and put others in danger. Whether you actually hurt someone else or not is irrelevant. And that's as far as I'm going with this discussion I've had a million times before. Stop the off-topic whining and go review the old threads.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

He cannot produce citations of actual data that discredit lott because there are none. He cannot provide cites to data supporting his contentions about curbing peoples rights because there are none. He can only cite the opinions of others that are equally unsupported.

This the board were people cite Rush Limbaugh, the Drudge Report, and Christian websitesno one even blinks. I post an LATimes article and it's "too biased". GTFO

 

[Gordie]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

If you believe there is such a right show us the law that says driving is a right and NOTa privilege, or just admit that you are wrong.

This was discussed already as well. Driving is included in right to liberty. .

Driving is not a right. This is why there is no outcry at the fact that it is licensed. Can you show one single case of a court in the U.S.A. declaring the right to drive a car on public roads?

Everything in this modern world requires operating an automobile. If you cannot drive, you are paralyzed as far as modern life is concerned.

WHAT?:what: It may surprise you to know that there are tens of thousands of people in New York City (by most accounts a modern city) who do not own cars. They get along just fine. I have met several myself.

If you truly believe that driving is a government granted privilege, to be taken away at any time, you have a rude awakening coming when it happens.

Who do you ask for permission to speak from? Who do you ask forpermission to gather with your friends from? Who do you ask forpermission to go (or refrain from going) to church from? Who do you ask forpermission to buy a gun from? ( I realize that in some places this is required by law, but I think that most of us would agree that it is unconstitutional, hence the constant fight.) The answer for me is NO ONE! (Except maybe my wife.)

Who do you ask for permission (a licence) to drive on public roads from?

The one who would get a rude awakening would be the one who believes it is a right and finds out that they were wrong, not the ones who knew it to bea privilege and are now just angry and disappointed.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

He cannot produce citations of actual data that discredit lott because there are none. He cannot provide cites to data supporting his contentions about curbing peoples rights because there are none. He can only cite the opinions of others that are equally unsupported.

This the board were people cite Rush Limbaugh, the Drudge Report, and Christian websitesno one even blinks. I post an LATimes article and it's "too biased". GTFO

Bull,

You have NEVER quoted a source for anything I have discussed with you, and I don't quote Limbaugh, Drudge or Christian websites and never have. My posts are all available for review I challenge you to find ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE supporting your statement.

You claim to have cited before, then show us the post where you did. Like most socialists you think it is the duty of others to do your research when in fact it is your job to provide the research to support your claims and assertions.

The citations I have seen you post are mostly letters to the editor that are also unsupported opinions of individuals. But none of them support your claims relating to preemption. A proper citation would be to a piece of Code, law or scholarly research, not just someone like yourself with an unsupported opinion on the op ed page.

Show me a LA Times NEWS ITEM, not an op ed, and I look at it. Your problem is that you can not find support for your opinion in the law so you CAN'T post citations, which makes you wrong. The true hallmark of a BS artist. You just spout your crap and expect people to swallow it whole. Unfortunately this forum is not buying what you are selling.

You want to be taken seriously, then provide persuasive data to back up your claims so people can be persuaded. This is no more or less than what is expected and demanded of anyone on this forum on a daily basis.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Gordie wrote:

Driving is not a right.  This is why there is no outcry at the fact that it is licensed.

Sure it is. Government recognizes, but does not create, rights. It may also fail to recognize rights.

Gordie wrote:

Everything in this modern world requires operating an automobile.  If you cannot drive, you are paralyzed as far as modern life is concerned.

WHAT?:what:  It may surprise you to know that there are tens of thousands of people in New York City (by most accounts a modern city) who do not own cars.  They get along just fine.  I have met several myself.

I do not live in New York. I live in San Francisco. I do not wish to be shot by BART police, so I drive.

Seriously though, the vast majority of the US is nothing like New York. People drive.

And without quoting the rest of your rather inane post, let me point out that a person arrested for driving without a license has not "found out" that they don't have the right, at all. They've simply had their right infringed by the government.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Gordie wrote:

Driving is not a right. This is why there is no outcry at the fact that it is licensed.

Sure it is. Government recognizes, but does not create, rights. It may also fail to recognize rights.

Gordie wrote:

Everything in this modern world requires operating an automobile. If you cannot drive, you are paralyzed as far as modern life is concerned.

WHAT?:what: It may surprise you to know that there are tens of thousands of people in New York City (by most accounts a modern city) who do not own cars. They get along just fine. I have met several myself.

I do not live in New York. I live in San Francisco. I do not wish to be shot by BART police, so I drive.

Seriously though, the vast majority of the US is nothing like New York. People drive.

And without quoting the rest of your rather inane post, let me point out that a person arrested for driving without a license has not "found out" that they don't have the right, at all. They've simply had their right infringed by the government.

What amendment recognizes or affirms a "right to drive?"
Are you confusing a right to drive with a right to freely move about? Driving a car would be very tough to prove as a "right" that can be infringed upon. Can you provide any statute that even mentions any such thing? Can you provide any case law that supports your attempt to say that driving is a right?

 

[les_aker]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Gordie wrote:

Driving is not a right. This is why there is no outcry at the fact that it is licensed.

Sure it is. Government recognizes, but does not create, rights. It may also fail to recognize rights.

Not according to the VA DMV. Please see the word "privilege" used multiple times below.

http://www.dmv.state.va.us/webdoc/citizen/drivers/reinstate.asp


Suspension, Revocation, and/or Disqualification
Actions to suspend, revoke, or disqualify your driving privileges in the Commonwealth may be imposed by a court, the Department of Social Services, or by DMV, depending on the nature of your violations.

If you are applying for a Virginia driver's license and your driving privilege is currently suspended, revoked, or disqualified in another state, you must first comply with that state's requirements and reinstate your driving privileges there before you can obtain a Virginia license.

The following information will help you distinguish between suspensions, revocations, and disqualifications, as well as provide some examples of the offenses that may result in each type of sanction.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

What amendment recognizes or affirms a "right to drive?"

The 9th Amendment to the Constitution wrote:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

There really is no sound logic by which there can be construed "no right to drive". For many people driving is getting around; restriction thereof would be tantamount to denial of the right of unrestricted movement. End of story.

(Remember, government has a forced monopoly on roads and highways. There is no competition, and in many circumstances no alternative to using public roads, which form the backbone for our society due to long-term government use of force to appropriate wealth in order to actively relocate society on and alongside public thoroughfares, by extensive and anticompetitive construction thereof. This discussion would, of course, be quite different in a world with private roads).

Unless you reject incorporation outright and believe the states should have unlimited authority to trample the rights of individuals within their boundaries, I don't believe your position has a leg to stand on.

I believe the Bill of Rights is intended to reflect individual human rights which no governing body within the Republic may reject. The Constitution does not create rights, it only enumerates a few of them, and reserves the rest without qualification. It is quite clear on this.

All precedent to the contrary is wrongly decided.

Period.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

les_aker wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Government recognizes, but does not create, rights. It may also fail to recognize rights.

Not according to the VA DMV.

Who gave the VA DMV authority to decide what constitutes a human right?

 

[wrightme]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

les_aker wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Government recognizes, but does not create, rights. It may also fail to recognize rights.

Not according to the VA DMV.

Who gave the VA DMV authority to decide what constitutes a human right?

Where has ANYONE proved that driving is a right?

Unless you can show such, you are creating it from whole cloth. To present it as fact without basis is false.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

I proved it above.

ETA: Here, let me repeat it for clarity:

marshaul wrote:

For many people driving is getting around; restriction thereof would be tantamount to denial of the right of unrestricted movement. End of story.

Remember, government has a forced monopoly on roads and highways. There is no competition, and in many circumstances no alternative to using public roads, which form the backbone for our society due to long-term government use of force to appropriate wealth in order to actively relocate society on and alongside public thoroughfares, by extensive and anticompetitive construction thereof.

This discussion would, of course, be quite different in a world with private roads.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

oops