A few years ago, the National Research Council reviewed the evidence on firearms and crime and concluded:

There is no credible evidence that “right-to-carry” laws, which allow qualified adults to carry concealed handguns, either decrease or increase violent crime.

Paul Cassell says that he finds plausible a new paper by Moody and Marvell that reanalyzes the data and finds carry laws associated with less crime.

I do not find Marvel and Moody’s conclusions plausible and they are not supported
by the results of their regressions. The results are all over the
place. Some crimes are up, some are down. So they aggregate using a
cost for each crime. But then they it’s up in more states than it’s
down. So they take a population-weighted average, which even then is
only down if you take a long enough time frame. And even then, if you
exclude Florida, it’s up. I don’t think that their data allows any
conclusions to be drawn.

Ayres and Donohue’s reply has not been published yet, but you see a preprint here:

Armed with the weight of a single new regression for each of seven crime categories,
Carlisle Moody and Thomas Marvell (2008) conclude their remarkable paper, “The
Debate on Shall-Issue Laws,” stating that they are “confident” that “the evidence, such as
it is, seems to support the hypothesis that the shall-issue law is generally beneficial with
respect to its overall long run effect on crime” (292). The paper is remarkable because
the evidence Moody and Marvell present thoroughly undermines (yet again) the
conclusion that RTC laws “generally” have any beneficial effect on crime.

Moody and Marvell essentially make four points, which simultaneously grow in the level of both their ambition and error. … With an appropriate quality-adjustment,
however, most of the “supportive” studies on their list would be deemed to have little or
no current value. … Moody and Marvell turn their gaze to Ayres and Donohue (2003a), which in 119
pages arrayed an enormous amount of information raising doubts about the more guns,
less crime hypothesis. Moody and Marvell ignore virtually all of this discussion and
instead challenge a single table, … their own estimates powerfully undercut their
suggestion that RTC laws are generally beneficial. Moody and Marvell then labor to
refute their own findings by once again unwisely extrapolating linear trends beyond the
period of their data.

Ouch.

Comments

  1. #1 Science Avenger
    January 18, 2009

    Slightly Peeved said: The advantage in an unarmed fight goes to the larger person; an even greater advantage in a gunfight goes to the aggressor. The gun is only an advantage if one is the aggressor, or if the aggressor doesn’t own a gun.

    This is rank Hollywood nonsense. You speak as though conflicts involving guns are some sort of contest where each person is going to try to win at all costs, regardless of the risk to themselves. In reality, when a gun is pulled on someone, the vast majority of people will run away, whether they are armed or not. This should be obvious: Most people’s desire to not get shot is far greater than their desire to shoot. Criminals who pull guns are looking to scare their victims into giving up without a fight, and most will flee in the face of stout resistence. In the case of stealth criminals, like burglars, it is even more true. All the aggresion one needs to win that scenario is to shout “I’ve got a gun, get the f*ck out of my house”.

    Now whether it is wise to pull a gun from one’s belt with someone pointing a gun at you is another question entirely, and the answer would depend on the details of the situation. But emphasizing this rare scenario focuses the discussion on the rare exception to reality, and as such isn’t very informative.

  2. #2 Science Avenger
    January 18, 2009

    Slightly Peeved said: The advantage in an unarmed fight goes to the larger person; an even greater advantage in a gunfight goes to the aggressor. The gun is only an advantage if one is the aggressor, or if the aggressor doesn’t own a gun.

    This is rank Hollywood nonsense. You speak as though conflicts involving guns are some sort of contest where each person is going to try to win at all costs, regardless of the risk to themselves. In reality, when a gun is pulled on someone, the vast majority of people will run away, whether they are armed or not. This should be obvious: Most people’s desire to not get shot is far greater than their desire to shoot. Criminals who pull guns are looking to scare their victims into giving up without a fight, and most will flee in the face of stout resistence. In the case of stealth criminals, like burglars, it is even more true. All the aggresion one needs to win that scenario is to shout “I’ve got a gun, get the f*ck out of my house”.

    Now whether it is wise to pull a gun from one’s belt with someone pointing a gun at you is another question entirely, and the answer would depend on the details of the situation. But emphasizing this rare scenario focuses the discussion on the rare exception to reality, and as such isn’t very informative.

  3. #3 sod
    January 18, 2009

    So if you are a nonsuicidal female above 35 years old, you make up approximately 1.9% of gunshot deaths (depending on how interrelated the stats are)

    for someone with the name “science avenger”, this is a pretty basic error. you can t just multiply the numbers for “below 35″ or “male, because they are not exclusive of each other.

    i took a short look at your blog, and many things there seem pretty reasonable. your approach on the gun topic, on the other hand and in combination with your chosen name brought up memories of “darkwing duck”.

    my problem with most gun control advocates is that they seem determined to ignore these realities entirely and pretend that a gun is equally dangerous regardless of whose hand it is in, and the data couldn’t be more clear on how wrong that is.

    here is my challenge: find any pro control commenter on this topic, who makes this claim!

    the problem is, that the typical person interested in
    concealed carrying a gun is NOT a 35+ female. and i am pretty sure that most women who would get such a gun would get good training and use it more respectful that most men (of every age!) would.

  4. #4 sg
    January 18, 2009

    hey science avenger, if most people run away when a gun is pulled on them, and a gun is such a non-murderous way to resolve conflict, how come the US has such a high rate of gun homicides?

  5. #5 ben
    January 18, 2009

    Never having been in a fight in your life puts you at a disadvantage against any woman who knows how to fight.

    I’ve never been in a fight due to anger, would be a better way to put it. I’ve wrestled, played a lot of football and rugby, and I have a massive size/strength advantage over virtually all women.

    A disciplined mind is the best defense. Carrying a gun is a poor substitute.

    I agree, it is a poor substitute. Better to have both.

  6. #6 Lance
    January 19, 2009

    I know a French/Vietnamese woman under five foot who has killed with her hands and feet aggressive armed and experienced soldiers three times her size and not always one at a time.

    She’s also a championship ballroom dancer.

    C’mon, admit it. She’s your secret on-line gaming avatar Phong Li Bardox isn’t she?

    You may want to lay off of the anime for a month or two.

  7. #7 z
    January 19, 2009

    “if most people run away when a gun is pulled on them, and a gun is such a non-murderous way to resolve conflict, how come the US has such a high rate of gun homicides?”

    cause we’re overweight and can’t run.

  8. #8 luminous beauty
    January 19, 2009

    Lance,

    Actually, she’s in her late 60’s now, and doubtless couldn’t replicate her feats when she was a professional assassin in Arvin Intel, but I’ll bet dollars to donuts she could take our friend ben apart and neatly stack up the pieces before he even realized his advances were being resisted.

  9. #9 Stu Chisholm
    January 20, 2009

    The ad hominem attacks here are absolutely shameful, and gut the arguments you’re all trying to make. How ’bout we class it up a bit?

    Childishness aside, there have been some good points made. While one poster noted that Canada’s per-capita gun ownership is roughly a third of the U.S., their number of shooting deaths is roughly a quarter. This is STILL a disparity — Canadians simply seem to be less violent overall. I’d like to see ALL of the violent crime data.

    That should be the bottom line, here, too. It’s not just shooting deaths, but violent crime. My mother worked in an ER in Detroit when I was growing up. She saw plenty of stabbings and blunt force trauma caused by baseball bats, crowbars and similar items — far moreso than gun shots. When a loved one is murdered, nobody CARES what TOOL was used! Would they feel better if they were murdered with a pillow? (How about registering THOSE!!!)

    The bottom line is that the law cannot prevent someone from owning or using a gun. But when laws ARE enacted to ban or restrict them, those laws only effect those inclined to actually FOLLOW them. Criminals don’t respect the law… which is why they’re criminals.

    Speaking of which, there’s a very high percentage of violent criminals here in the U.S. as compared to many other countries. IMO, that makes an excellent case for keeping guns in the hands of the law abiding! Note that in any reports of shooting sprees or incidents, a crime by an actual permit holder is nearly non-existent! (And you can bet that if they WERE a permit holder, you’d hear about it!) It’s not the “dingbats” who have legally gotten a permit that are causing the trouble. Oh, and by the way, for those of you who don’t carry guns, which would you rather have around you: people with guns who have had at least some training, passed an FBI background check and have no criminal history OR unlicensed people with no training, no background checks and possibly convicted felons? Actually this is a trick question: the latter are already walking among us! What people seem to be objecting to is the FORMER. This is an unsupportable position by any logic.

    I really do think we all have common ground here: we are all against violent crime. Gun owners need to stop and consider the very valid concerns of the non-gun-owning public and be responsible with their firearms. If you’re going to enjoy your sport, or right to self-defense, then the onus is on YOU to make sure your firearms are safe and don’t fall into the wrong hands. That said, the non-gun-owners need to consider that guns have a justifiable and vital role in our society that has nothing to do with duck hunting. There are already plenty of laws governing guns, from manufacture, distribution and sale right on down to how they’re disposed of. Our focus, then, must be on those who don’t follow the law: why they become violent and what we can do about it. It’s not nearly as simplistic as “ban all the guns,” because life is messy and doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker.

    If you’re interested in a more positive, constructive dialogue, see my article, at: http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Conversation-We-re-NOT-by-Stuart-Chisholm-090110-130.html

    A safe, happy 2008 to all!

  10. #10 Dunc
    January 20, 2009

    And yet the fact remains that I am so much bigger and stronger than pretty much any unarmed woman not on steroids that they would have a hard time prevailing against an assailant like me.

    Dude. My karate sensei was a 5′ 2″, 98 pound woman. Unless you’re 4th Dan or higher, she’d kick your ass. In fact, it doesn’t take a great deal of training to learn how to deal with an untrained, unarmed attacker of any weight or size. In many ways, being smaller confers an advantage in hand-to-hand combat – the bigger they are, the harder they fall.

  11. #11 Dunc
    January 20, 2009

    But when laws ARE enacted to ban or restrict them, those laws only effect those inclined to actually FOLLOW them. Criminals don’t respect the law… which is why they’re criminals.

    Trivially true, but perhaps an over-simplification. Here in the UK, it’s certainly true that criminals can acquire both guns and ammunition. However, it is significantly more difficult, because they are not freely available. You can’t pop down to the supermarket to pick up a case of ammo, and ammo on the black market is much more expensive (anecdotally, I’ve heard prices in the range of GPB 5 per round).

  12. #12 ben
    January 20, 2009

    Well, my dad can beat up your dad.

  13. #13 bi -- IJI
    January 20, 2009

    Stu Chisholm spews the usual talking points.

    > That should be the bottom line, here, too. It’s not just shooting deaths, but violent crime. [...]

    > The bottom line is that the law cannot prevent someone from owning or using a gun.

    Will the real bottom line please stand up?

    Oops, I just accidentally oppressed Stu Chisholm again. Sorry.

  14. #14 Science Avenger
    January 20, 2009

    sg said: for someone with the name “science avenger”, this is a pretty basic error. you can t just multiply the numbers for “below 35″ or “male, because they are not exclusive of each other.

    No shit Sherlock, thus my comment “depending on how interrelated the stats are”.

    sg said: here is my challenge: find any pro control commenter on this topic, who makes this claim!

    Well, since I never said any of them made the claim, I decline your challenge due to irrelevancy. I do however, submit much of this thread as evidence of the claim I actually did make. Here is example 2,347:

    sod said: hey science avenger, if most people run away when a gun is pulled on them, and a gun is such a non-murderous way to resolve conflict, how come the US has such a high rate of gun homicides?

    Your question is a total non sequitor. The number of people murdered with guns is a tiny proportion of the total population, roughly 1:25,000 annually. There are plenty of people left with guns to make would-be criminals run away.

  15. #15 Science Avenger
    January 20, 2009

    Luminous Beauty said: I’ll bet dollars to donuts she could take our friend ben apart and neatly stack up the pieces before he even realized his advances were being resisted.

    Dunc: My karate sensei was a 5′ 2″, 98 pound woman. Unless you’re 4th Dan or higher, she’d kick your ass.

    The more you people talk the more it becomes clear that you’ve formed your opinions of combat from watching movies. First it was the depiction of the typical gun conflict as some fearless fight-to-the-death shootout a la Clint Eastwood or Arnold. Now you’re talking like Enter The Dragon was real and claiming a 98 pound karate woman could defeat a wrestler (Ben) in hand to hand combat. Do the letters UFC mean anything to you? Go check out the early matches where karate guys, with weight ADVANTAGES of up to 70 pounds, consistently got their asses kicked by wrestlers. Ben (or any competent wrestler) would have your precious sensei (of any gender) on the ground taking elbows to the face and wishing he/she was somewhere else in short order…unless they waved a gun at him first, in which case he’d probably run.

  16. #16 ben
    January 21, 2009

    Actually SA, my single greatest advantage is that I’m married to a woman with an occasional temper and I’ve learned that my simplest means of defending myself is to simply placate her with chocolate. :)

    And yes, Karate and all the other kicking/punching marshal arts are pathetically useless against wreslting/judo/grappling, except in the movies.

  17. #17 bi -- IJI
    January 21, 2009

    So instead of learning about martial arts and self-defence through Hollywood movies and karate sensei, we should be learning about them from right-wing ideological dittoheads.

    Makes sense!

  18. #18 luminous beauty
    January 21, 2009

    SA,

    Disabling blows are disallowed in sparring and demonstrations of the sport of karate. For self defense, not so much.

  19. #19 ben
    January 21, 2009

    So instead of learning about martial arts and self-defence through Hollywood movies and karate sensei, we should be learning about them from right-wing ideological dittoheads.

    All I claimed was that karate and other kick/punch marshal arts are not very good for self defense. Wrestling/grapling/judo are superior in my opinion. Results from those actual fights in the ring in which contestants can use whichever techniques they like tend to back me up.

    I dislike fighting and those shows, but I did watch a couple matches from the very first UFC. The best one was this 800th degree karate black belt vs. a plain old brawler. One punch from the brawler sent the karate idiot running for his life.

    I hate fighting and all this stuff is crap anyway.

  20. #20 Mike Vanderboegh
    January 22, 2009

    I left this over at ole Barkley’s site, but I think y’all could use a dose of it too. —

    How many economists (with their social scientist dates) can dance on the head of a gun control pin?

    The fascinating thing about intellectuals is that they actually believe that their trench warfare over footnotes and data actually MEANS anything in the grand scheme of things as we are faced with today.

    All of your snarky arguments are about to be overwhelmed by events. Either the society collapses under the economic tidal wave that is about to hit (in which case those who have firearms will no doubt survive better than those who eschew them, and the armed will be ill-disposed to obey any scheme that works toward their disarmament) or the Obamanoids will proceed with AWB2 and the federal seizure of control over all private transfer of arms (the ill-named lie called “the gunshow loophole”) thus sparking armed civil disobedience if not outright civil war.

    In the first event, you left-wing academics are either going to be stew for the cannibal’s pot, or pulling plows for those who are armed.

    In the second, those who advocate citizen disarmament of the “gun nuts” are going to be hiding in deep cellars and caves from those people who, having lost family members to a predatory government, will be using Bill Clinton’s Serbian rules of engagement to wipe out the political, media and intellectual underpinnings of that tyrannical regime.

    In any case, your footnotes will be used for kindling.

    Kinda makes you want to go buy a firearm, doesn’t it? Better hurry, before they’re all gone.

    Mike Vanderboegh
    sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com

  21. #21 bi -- IJI
    January 22, 2009

    Shorter Mike Vanderboegh:

    I don’t care if you’re right or wrong, because I has gunz!!!!!!

  22. #22 Mike Vanderboegh
    January 22, 2009

    And you were trying to be insulting with that, right? Put another way: “When Democracy Turns to Tyranny, I STILL Get to Vote.” People may vote with their feet (as in leaving deadly “citizen disarmament zones” like the liberal-conrolled cities or states for places where gun ownership is cherished), with their wallets (as in the Great Obama Gun Rush) or, if all else fails, with their rifles.

    You know, calling us “gun nuts” and advocating that our liberty and property be taken from us does not endear you to us. If the Obamanoids decide that they can twist the meaning of the Constitution and the laws so that they no longer protect us, then they can hardly quibble if we decide that the law no longer protects THEM either. Nor will they protect you, come to that.

    For 75 years we have been pushed back by the federal government in the free exercise of our right to arms. Each time we backed up grudgingly. Now some of us have decided that we will no longer back up — that if the administration draws the line of the law behind where we now stand, we will resist. And we will do so at the muzzles of our rifles if necessary.

    We don’t want to tell you how to live, we merely wish to be left alone. You can sneer at us, revile us, call us names, but you cannot deny (unless you are as ungrounded in reality as you accuse us of being) that we are here, we are armed and we are not going away quietly.

    Now, you can either accept that, or you can try doing what has always worked for you in the past. If you do the latter, we will introduce you to the Law of Unintended Consequences. It is the the statute that kicks in when all the other laws have been knocked flat.

    Or, as my Grandpa Vanderboegh told me: “Don’t poke a wolverine with a sharp stick, boy, unless you want your balls ripped off.”

    All of the intellectual argument between Lott and his critics, in the end, is spit in the wind. Don’t poke the wolverine. Good advice. It remains to be seen if y’all are smart enough to recognize it.

    Mike Vanderboegh
    Pinson, AL

  23. #23 bi -- IJI
    January 22, 2009

    Shorter Mike Vanderboegh #220:

    I don’t care if you’re right or wrong, because I has gunz!!!!!!

    Shorter Mike Vanderboegh #222:

    Waaah! Waaah! They bully me! Mommy! He hurt!

    :-O

  24. #24 Mike Vanderboegh
    January 22, 2009

    Thanks for making my point about alleged “intellectuals.” Those who can, do. Those who can’t teach. Those who can neither do nor teach, engage in name-calling those who can. They are intellectual onanists such as yourself. The only ones they spatter with their batter are themselves. Don’t you find it the least bit embarrassing?

  25. #25 Aureola Nominee, FCD
    January 22, 2009

    …and then there are those like me, former army officers trained in the use of weapons and combat tactics, who will gladly take up arms in defense of democracy and the rule of law against two-bit militias infatuated with their noisy toys and their skewed reading of half an amendment.

    Tell me, Mr. Vanderboegh; what are you going to do when the pros will come out to deal with your wannabe uprising?

  26. #26 ben
    January 22, 2009

    …take up arms in defense of democracy and the rule of law…

    Right. Are you going to be on the side of the “rule of law” when the law clearly contradicts the constitution? When the “law” obviously takes away your right to free speech?

    What was it Scalia once said? Oh yes:

    It is literally true that the U.S. Supreme Court has entirely liberated itself from the text of the Constitution. We are free at last, free at last. There is no respect in which we are chained or bound by the text of the Constitution. All it takes is five hands.

    You’re going to use your tactics and training to fight for that? Lame.

  27. #27 ben
    January 22, 2009

    It also dons on me, AN, that the second amendment was in fact intended to protect the liberty of citizens of the USA from people like you. “Skewed readong of half an amendement” indeed.

  28. #28 Mike Vanderboegh
    January 22, 2009

    “…and then there are those like me, former army officers trained in the use of weapons and combat tactics, who will gladly take up arms in defense of democracy and the rule of law against two-bit militias infatuated with their noisy toys and their skewed reading of half an amendment.”

    MBV: First, if you take up arms in defense of “democracy” rather than the constitutional republic of the Founders, you will be violating the oath you took as an Army officer to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” You do recall that oath, I assume?

    Second, it is our side who will be fighting for the rule of law as the Founders understood it. The attack, if it comes, will be launched by the Obamanoids. Anything we do in return will be self-defense.

    Third, you will be fighting other officers and former officers who took the same oath as you but view it not as a Fuehrer Oath to the personality of Obama, or the majority rule of his acolytes, but to the Constitution, which includes an individual right to arms of military utility.

    “Tell me, Mr. Vanderboegh; what are you going to do when the pros will come out to deal with your wannabe uprising?
    Posted by: Aureola Nominee, FCD”

    MBV: Most of the “pros” will be on our side, and as I said, it won’t be an “uprising” on our part. The “revolutionaries” are, by self-acclamation, the Obamanoids (see quotes by Rep. John Lewis of GA, et al, for example). Obama is the culmination of a Gramscian collectivist revolution that has been going on for decades in politics, the media, the culture and the schools.

    In truth, all we want is to be left alone with our traditional, natural and God-given liberties. It is the other side who cannot be satisfied, whose appetites for more nanny-state power compels them to push us farther and farther against the wall. We have simply decided not to be pushed anymore. If however your side cannot control themselves, then the conflict that begins with our self-defense will become one of Restoration, not Revolution.

    And it will be you who are outnumbered by “the pros.” And we will win. Better not to go there, don’t you think?

    One final thought. If you are truly an ex-Army officer, do you not understand how terrible a conflict this would be? Have you no understanding or experience with the ghastliness of war? These cheesedick lefty intellectuals may be forgiven for their ignorance on one level at least. But if you truly have seen the elephant, why would you want to bring that home to your own country?

    You seem to think that we want a war by announcing our intentions. Hell, we’re trying to prevent one. Most wars come about because one side or the other believes that their opponents will not fight, or will not fight well. In your opening comment, you seem to have bought into that same fallacy. Believe me, if there are men and women willing to die for their principles, no matter how much you deride or despise them, these same people are willing to kill for those principles too.

    I beg you, remember the oath you took. It was not to Obama or to his collectivist dream.

  29. #29 z
    January 22, 2009

    so… do you ever watch “the office”? you ever think about gareth/dwight?

  30. #30 Aureola Nominee, FCD
    January 22, 2009

    Mr. Vanderboegh,

    it’s not me who brought up civil war scenarios, but you. All I say is, if you try to start a civil war, don’t fool yourself with delusions of having the Armed Forces and the vets on your side. Most of us call bullshit on your subversive propaganda.

    Instead of your deranged fantasies about President Obama’s non-existing collectivist dream, try joining the reality-based community for once. This country is headed for some very trying times, and will need lots of sweat, cool heads and good will to pull through.

    And, ben: go reread the Second Amendment. Since you’re at it, reread also the rest of the Constitution. Oh, and find out what a democracy is, what a republic is, and why the USA are in fact both a democracy and a republic.

  31. #31 Mike Vanderboegh
    January 22, 2009

    AN: You haven’t been paying attention to what the military, especially combat arms, thinks of your fearless leader. There are opinion polls out there, and you will find little comfort in them.

    Insofar as you believing that the military will support gun confiscation, it is you who is “delusional”, not me.

    Again, we will not attack anybody. However, after the regime attacks us, we will respond. It is in the street, by events, that you will discover how wrong you were. Unfortunately it will be too late to recover the ability to prevent such a catastrophe by LEAVING US THE HELL ALONE.

    You want “cool heads and good will”? Then keep your damn hands off our liberty and property. Tell that to your Fuehrer.

    Mike Vanderboegh
    III

  32. #32 bi -- IJI
    January 22, 2009

    Shorter Mike Vanderboegh #220:

    I don’t care if you’re right or wrong, because I has gunz!!!!!!

    Shorter Mike Vanderboegh #222:

    Waaah! Waaah! They bully me! Mommy! He hurt!

    Shorter Mike Vanderboegh #224:

    You may insult me now, but I has gunz!!!!!! We willz roolz!!!!!

    Shorter Mike Vanderboegh #228:

    Obama is a Communist! Just you wait!

    Shorter Mike Vanderboegh #231:

    Obama will bring on a New World Order! And we will stop him! Because we has gunz!!!!!!

    * * *

    Just another right-wing ideological dittohead.

  33. #33 Lurkbot
    January 22, 2009

    It also dons on me, AN, that the second amendment was in fact intended to protect the liberty of citizens of the USA from people like you. “Skewed readong of half an amendement” indeed.

    “Skewed readong of half an amendement” exactly. This has been dealt with many times. If you think the 2nd amendment has anything to say on the subject of private gun ownership one way or the other, that’s because you’re too goddamn stupid to hold one entire sentence in your head at one time.

    Vanderboegh: I knew that disgusting turds of shit like you existed, but very seldom do you see someone as deranged and filled with noxious venom as you show yourself in the light. This “cheesedick lefty” will fight you in every way you can imagine, assisted by the loyal members of the Armed Forces who swore to uphold the constitution, and can read in entire sentences. We higher primates, the last few million years here, are trying to have a society. If you goddamn gun nuts fancy yourselves some kind of lone wolf predators, you’re going to see how fucking laughable your delusions are. And oh, yes, bite me!

  34. #34 Aureola Nominee, FCD
    January 22, 2009

    Mr. Vanderboegh:

    for your information, “gun confiscation” is another of your delusional fantasies, with no basis in reality.

    And, BTW, you are the one who has next to no idea how the military feels and thinks about the President. Your precious opinion polls are of the same kind that convinced dittoheads that the election would be a cakewalk; echo chambers, with very little in common with reality.

    Isn’t it strange that no constitutional scholar, regardless of political leanings, agrees with you about Obama or the danger the Constitution is supposedly in?

    Get out more, talk more with more people. It helps dispel these dark apocalyptic fantasies of yours (which, by the way, sound much, much closer to der Führer‘s own than anything President Obama has ever said or written).

  35. #35 Science Avenger
    January 22, 2009

    Luminous Beauty said: Disabling blows are disallowed in sparring and demonstrations of the sport of karate. For self defense, not so much.

    I was talking about actual combat, not demonstrations and sparring. In actual combat, the wrestlers destroy the karate guys. All those high flying kicks are certainly entertaining, and against an unskilled opponent, are no doubt effective, as are most of the martial arts. But it is a matter of easily accessible public record that the grappling arts (jiu jitsu, sambo, grecko roman, freestyle) dominate the striking arts (karate, tae kwon do, kung fu).

    bj–IJI said: So instead of learning about martial arts and self-defence through Hollywood movies and karate sensei, we should be learning about them from right-wing ideological dittoheads. Makes sense!

    About as much sense as learning them from a guy who blindly labels all his rhetorical opponents “dittoheads” because he can’t handle the actual data on the subject. How ad hominem of you. Thanks for the healthy reminder that left wingers can be closed-minded too.

  36. #36 ben
    January 22, 2009

    This has been dealt with many times. If you think the 2nd amendment has anything to say on the subject of private gun ownership one way or the other, that’s because you’re too goddamn stupid to hold one entire sentence in your head at one time.

    Sorry Lurkbot, but the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you. Or did you not notice the ruling in Heller?

  37. #37 Lurkbot
    January 22, 2009

    Fuck the Supreme Court. As you yourself pointed out, all you need is five diseased animals like Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts, and they can wipe their asses with the constitution. It’s time that nest of vipers was cleansed with fire!

  38. #38 ben
    January 23, 2009

    This has been dealt with many times. If you think the 2nd amendment has anything to say on the subject of private gun ownership one way or the other, that’s because you’re too goddamn stupid to hold one entire sentence in your head at one time.

    Fuck the Supreme Court.

    Alright, then lets have a look at your lame assertion ourselves. From my favorite gun facts website:

    The Second Amendment:
    A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
    The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.
    The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a “collective right.” The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people’s right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.
    There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.

    and:

    Militia
    The word “militia” has several meanings. It can be a body of citizens (no longer exclusively male) enrolled for military service where full time duty is required only in emergencies. The term also refers to the eligible pool of citizens callable into military service. (dictionary.com)
    The federal government can use the militia for the following purposes as stated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:
    To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

    Besides, what part of “…the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” don’t you understand? Is the “right of the people” in the second amendment somehow different than in all the other amendments where everyone knows that the rights protected are individual rights?

    Besides, the justification clause is not the sole justification for the amendment, just an important one. And you can say I’m wrong, but scholars such as Eugene Volokh would disagree with you.

  39. #39 Mark
    January 23, 2009

    Aureola Nominee, FCD

    Think confiscations are a delusion?

    [Watch the below youtube video and learn otherwise.]{http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4)
    It HAS happened in the United States, and WILL HAPPEN AGAIN.
    Get it through your thick skull. When the cops start raiding people because they didn’t register their firearms, we will not wait in our homes and cede the initiative to the enemy. We will come for those who sent them, and will continue to come until you stop sending them.
    It wasn’t just the FBI and/or BATF that took notes at Waco, Texas.
    And trust me, the military would be paralyzed with internal division if such a scenario were to occur. And lest you think that they would roll over us patriots once they did get organized, consider how many of us patriots used to wear that uniform. We have not forgotten our training, and an M-1A2 tank drives just like it did in 1984 when they were introduced as the M-1.

  40. #40 Mike Vanderboegh
    January 23, 2009

    Lurkbot sez: “Fuck the Supreme Court. As you yourself pointed out, all you need is five diseased animals like Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts, and they can wipe their asses with the constitution. It’s time that nest of vipers was cleansed with fire!”

    Ah, yes, here we have the perfect example of “scratch a liberal, get a fascist.” It is all collectivism after all. Is this the sort of ally you had in mind, oh-I-forgot-my-oath AN?

    Then AN sez: “Mr. Vanderboegh, for your information, ‘gun confiscation’ is another of your delusional fantasies, with no basis in reality.”

    MBV: Ah, but you haven’t been paying attention to the whitehouse.gov site which spells out the Obamanoids’ appetite for banning semi-automatic rifles of military utility as well as fifty caliber rifles, not to mention the seizure of total control over the private transfer of arms, including your ability to hand your grandpa’s shotgun to your son without seeking the Leviathan’s permission. Total registration and partial confiscation of arms is written into both these schemes. You should read up on your subject more. Heard of Boby Rush’s HB45 yet? You will.

    Then, sez AN: “And, BTW, you are the one who has next to no idea how the military feels and thinks about the President. Your precious opinion polls are of the same kind that convinced dittoheads that the election would be a cakewalk; echo chambers, with very little in common with reality.”

    MBV: Actually, as I have a son and many friends in the military currently, I am quite up-to-date anecdotally. How do you suppose the removal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” is going to go over with combat arms soldiers? Think that’s going to make your Fuehrer more or less popular?

    Then sez AN: “Isn’t it strange that no constitutional scholar, regardless of political leanings, agrees with you about Obama or the danger the Constitution is supposedly in?”

    MBV: I’d say you aren’t up to date on your reading. Google the article, “The Remainder Problem.” In any case, I don’t vett my principles with constitional scholars. Old Barry Soetero was a professor of constitutional law, you know.

    Then sez AN: “Get out more, talk more with more people. It helps dispel these dark apocalyptic fantasies of yours (which, by the way, sound much, much closer to der Führer’s own than anything President Obama has ever said or written).”

    MBV: It is you who need to get out more. I’d hazard a guess that you are a big city boy. As far as Obama goes, I’m not as concerned about him as I am about the honky socialist bitches he has surrounded himself with. BTW, I have a life-time of experience fighting Nazis and the Klan at street level. I know that you should pay attention to what people do, as opposed to what they say.

    The scariest thing about Obama is his narcissism. Ever look at the way he lifts his jaw and pivots his head when the adoring masses are applauding him? He’s a dead ringer for Mussolini. With this guy, it is all about HIM, suckers. He doesn’t give a rat turd about the Constitution or the Founders’ Republic. And neither, I guess, do you.

  41. #41 Lurkbot
    January 23, 2009

    Vanderboegh:

    My contempt for your insane delusions and your attempts to project your psychological deficits onto others should be clear enough that I’m not going to lower myself to argue with you any more. You are without a doubt the most contemptible asshole I’ve ever seen on any of these blogs. Please eat shit and die.

    Mark:

    It wasn’t just the FBI and/or BATF that took notes at Waco, Texas.

    I sure as hell hope not. When they discovered that that fucking nut cult was stockpiling arms like that, they should have called in an air strike right then and there. The should never have endangered any human lives at all.

    Ben:

    Quoting drivel from gun nut mags doesn’t impress me, and neither does the ability of the current right-wing-ideology-addled supreme court to understand one simple sentence. The second amendment was established to guarantee “the security of a free state”, which we have plenty of people “keeping and bearing arms” to do. The only conceivable basis for a “right” to private gun ownership would be the right to “Life, Liberty , and the Pursuit of Happiness” in the Declaration of Independence. If we as a society, think the only way anyone can guarantee their own right to life is to be armed with firearms, you might have a hook to hang that on there. The civilized world seems to get along just fine without it, but then they don’t have the historic detritus of insane buttfuckers like Vanderboegh dragging them down like we do.

  42. #42 bi -- IJI
    January 23, 2009

    Shorter Mike Vanderboegh #220:
    I don’t care if you’re right or wrong, because I has gunz!!!!!!

    Shorter Mike Vanderboegh #222:
    Waaah! Waaah! They bully me! Mommy! He hurt!

    Shorter Mike Vanderboegh #224:
    You may insult me now, but I has gunz!!!!!! We willz roolz!!!!!

    Shorter Mike Vanderboegh #228:
    Obama is a Communist! Just you wait!

    Shorter Mike Vanderboegh #231:
    Obama will bring on a New World Order! And we will stop him! Because we has gunz!!!!!!

    Shorter Mike Vanderboegh #241:
    Obama supporters are a bunch of fascists!!!!!!!!! (Also, Obama supporters are a bunch of namby-pamby intellectuals. And Obama is also a Communist. And probably a Fascist too.)

    * * *

    I’m calling Godwin on that last one.

  43. #43 P. Lewis
    January 23, 2009

    The civilized world seems to get along just fine without it, but then they don’t have the historic detritus of insane buttfuckers like Vanderboegh dragging them down like we do.

    Oh, we do Lurkbot, we do. Every country (democratic, autocratic, republic, monarchy, oligarchy, …) has its share of “insane buttfuckers”. It’s part of the spectrum that is the (in)human condition.

  44. #44 Aureola Nominee, FCD
    January 23, 2009

    Mark:

    So, if you people violate the law and the police come to enforce the law, you will oppose them with lethal force?

    Thank you for clarifying (if anyone didn’t already know that) what is underneath the thin veneer of “respect for the Constitution” you guys blabber about.

  45. #45 Barton Paul Levenson
    January 23, 2009

    Mike V posts:

    Those who can neither do nor teach, engage in name-calling those who can. They are intellectual onanists such as yourself.

    You’re bad because you use insults, you dummyhead!

  46. #46 Barton Paul Levenson
    January 23, 2009

    Mike V thinks 1) that Army guys would support a militia war against the government if the government banned private ownership of machine guns, and 2) that they’re for keeping “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” For this he cites anecdotal evidence.

    Here’s my anecdotal evidence — my brother (Lieutenant Colonel US Army, served in Bosnia, got just back from the front lines in Iraq) thinks militia folks are nutcases and doesn’t know anyone who would have sided with Koresh at Waco. For the gay issue, when you’re trying to generate a crossfire to take out opfor on the ground, you don’t care if the guy working with you is a buttfucker or not. My brother reports that in Iraq they are very, very reluctant to prosecute soldiers for gay offenses unless some damage to discipline or harm to another soldier is involved (but when it is they pounce).

    Mike V apparently lives in a very insular world where people with the same outlook endlessly reinforce each other’s worldview. It’s very ego-boosting, but not very useful for dealing with reality.

  47. #47 Barton Paul Levenson
    January 23, 2009

    AN writes:

    So, if you people violate the law and the police come to enforce the law, you will oppose them with lethal force?
    Thank you for clarifying (if anyone didn’t already know that) what is underneath the thin veneer of “respect for the Constitution” you guys blabber about.

    That’s it exactly. I used to engage a militia nut in a chat room in AOL, until I heard him say that if a policeman ever tried to arrest him, he would “blow him away.” For an unjustified arrest or a political move to assassinate him? No, for any reason at all.

    That’s who we’re dealing with.

  48. #48 sod
    January 23, 2009

    but you haven’t been paying attention to the whitehouse.gov site which spells out the Obamanoids’ appetite for banning semi-automatic rifles of military utility as well as fifty caliber rifles,

    .50 should definitely be banned. find yourself some other toy.

  49. #49 luminous beauty
    January 23, 2009

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_policy/

    Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

    Of course, civilians need .50cal rifles to protect themselves from all the rogue elephants, charging rhinos and Kodiak bears that threaten our neighborhoods daily. They must be modifiable for ease of hip fire, because firing from the hip is so much more safe and accurate than shoulder fire and it looks so cool, and having to change the magazine after 10 rounds is such a drag. O yeah!

  50. #50 ben
    January 23, 2009

    .50 should definitely be banned. find yourself some other toy.

    Why? I personally don’t like them because they are too loud, but they are great target rifles for those who do like them. And you want to ban a weapon that has never been used to commit murder, not a single time, in the United States?

    They must be modifiable for ease of hip fire, because firing from the hip is so much more safe and accurate than shoulder fire and it looks so cool, and having to change the magazine after 10 rounds is such a drag. O yeah!

    LB, firing from the hip is for lame action movies like Rambo. Nobody else uses that technique. I’d like to see you try to fire one of those .50BMG rifles from the hip. For people who know how to use them, a .50BMG is a very accurate long range target rifle. They are also one of the weapons that would be useful if the government did collapse into tyranny and armed revolt became necessary. I doubt that will happen, but in the words of circuit court Judge Alex Kozinsky

    My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed–where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

  51. #51 bi -- IJI
    January 23, 2009

    > They are also one of the weapons that would be useful if the government did collapse into tyranny and armed revolt became necessary.

    No, fantasy ben. When the US government turns to tyranny, the gun owners, along with yourself, will find yourself on the side of the tyrants. And you won’t know it.

  52. #52 luminous beauty
    January 23, 2009

    ben,

    Have you ever fired a fully automatic weapon?

    That’s what hip fire is for. It’s the same for a semi-automatic if one is pulling the trigger as fast as one can.

    The idea isn’t to hit distant targets accurately, it’s to lay down a lot of fire at short range and let God sort out the victims.

  53. #53 luminous beauty
    January 23, 2009

    ben,

    A buddy of mine who was a USMC sniper in Nam carried as his weapon of choice a 12ga. Browning Automatic with pistol grip and 16 inch open choke barrel. Can you imagine why?

  54. #54 ben
    January 23, 2009

    Have you ever fired a fully automatic weapon?
    That’s what hip fire is for. It’s the same for a semi-automatic if one is pulling the trigger as fast as one can.
    The idea isn’t to hit distant targets accurately, it’s to lay down a lot of fire at short range and let God sort out the victims.

    LB, I’m starting to think that you are mentally deficient. I’ve shot all sorts of weapons, but none full-auto. However I do know that spray from the hip fire is stupid. Even if you do need to lay down suppressive fire, doing it from the hip is dumb for a number of reasons. The primary reason this is dumb is that it leaves your entire torso exposed to enemy fire. The second primary reason that it is dumb is that it is much less accurate than aimed fire.

    Shooting semi-auto as fast as you can pull the trigger is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like shooting full-auto. Here’s my buddy shooting his NM M1A as fast as he can pull the trigger.

    Here’s the same type of rifle fired full-auto. You’re telling me those two things are the same? You’re telling me that full auto is done “from the hip”?

    A buddy of mine who was a USMC sniper in Nam carried as his weapon of choice a 12ga. Browning Automatic with pistol grip and 16 inch open choke barrel. Can you imagine why?

    Sniper who carried a shotgun? Not much of a sniper, unless that was his backup weapon. Shotguns are effective at close range, so if you think you might be fighting in close quarters that’d be ok. Especially with the open choke. As soon as you get beyond 20 yards separation, I’d go with the rifle over the shotgun any day.

  55. #55 luminous beauty
    January 23, 2009

    ben,

    Aiming automatic fire from the shoulder is terribly inaccurate. Once one begins firing there isn’t any way to aim the fucker. Same with quick semi-auto fire. The real world combat technique for automatic weapons is not to aim the weapon at a particular target, but to direct the spray in a lateral direction, mowing down everything in a broad swath. It might not be accurate, but effective, it is. This is very difficult to do from the shoulder, especially if one is moving, which one is highly motivated to keep doing in a fire fight.

    When one is standing in the open, one’s whole body is exposed no matter what pose one strikes. A rifle isn’t much of a shield.

    The shotgun wasn’t his back-up.

    The point being that unless one has been in the shit, one doesn’t have a clue.

  56. #56 ben
    January 23, 2009

    LB, sorry but you are full of crap.

    I’m no expert, but I do know from talking to guys who’ve been “in the shit” that suppressive fire usually doesn’t mow anything down, but just keeps the enemy’s head down so that the other guys you are with can advance or retreat.

    Now, there are three hundred million + videos of Iraq and Afghanistan combat on youtube. If you search for “iraq combat” and find any video of combat you will find that if not all then at minimum 100:1 the US military men shoot from the shoulder, full auto or otherwise. You’ll also see few if any shotguns. The M4 is a terrific close quarters weapon and it easily outclasses a stupid shotgun for just about any situation the soldiers encounter over there.

    When one is standing in the open, one’s whole body is exposed no matter what pose one strikes. A rifle isn’t much of a shield.

    Which is why our men are not trained to stand in the open and fire from the hip. I don’t know why this concept is so challenging for you.

  57. #57 ben
    January 23, 2009

    LB, go ahead and ask Aureola Nominee, FCD up there if American soldiers are trained to fight like you say. He and I might not agree on politics, but he’ll tell you that you are full of crap too. Stand out in the open and fire from the hip. Ha ha ha.

  58. #58 luminous beauty
    January 23, 2009

    ben,

    99.9% of the footage of soldiers firing automatic weapons is going to be M-60s or bigger, securely mounted from fixed, well defended positions. You don’t see too many TV cameras straying far from right behind those positions. Can’t imagine why.

    M-4s are selectively fully automatic. It’s an option. Pretty much only useful as covering fire when crossing open ground or thoroughly trashing an enemy position at close quarters. You don’t see much footage at that operational level. Can’t imagine why.

  59. #59 ben
    January 23, 2009

    99.9% of the footage of soldiers firing automatic weapons is going to be M-60s or bigger, securely mounted from fixed, well defended positions. You don’t see too many TV cameras straying far from right behind those positions. Can’t imagine why.

    1. You are wrong. There is a plethora of footage at youtube of soldiers firing their M4s.

    2. In neither case, M60s or M4s will you see anyone firing from the hip. I thought you wrote that automatics were all about standing out in the open and firing from the hip.

    This argument is not worth having.

  60. #60 luminous beauty
    January 23, 2009

    ben,

    You’re right.

  61. #61 Mark
    January 24, 2009

    Aureola Nominee, FCD

    No, not unless I’m one of the first few that is selected to be raided. If I am, well, we will just have to see what we can see.
    If others are raided first, well then, I am free to engage as main battery comes to bear, aren’t I?
    You are all missing the main point that I’m trying to get across, as usual. That point is: This far, no further, not without consequences. Pole the wolverine with a stick long enough, and you get the claws.

  62. #62 bi -- IJI
    January 24, 2009

    > That point is: This far, no further, not without consequences. Pole the wolverine with a stick long enough, and you get the claws.

    In other words: I don’t care if you’re right or wrong, because I has gunz!!!!!!!!

  63. #63 sod
    January 24, 2009

    Pole the wolverine with a stick long enough, and you get the claws.

    look, it is comments like this one, that make me support gun restrictions.

    crazy people should NOT have access to guns!

    another strong point is how the guy in ben’s video is “safely handling” his gun.

    careless people should NOT have access to guns!

  64. #64 Aureola Nominee, FCD
    January 24, 2009

    It seems to me a variant on the old “power” conundrum: those who most seek power are precisely those who shouldn’t be given it.

    In the same vein, those who most want to carry weapons are precisely those who shouldn’t be allowed to.

    And I offer Mark as Exhibit “A”.

  65. #65 ben
    January 25, 2009

    another strong point is how the guy in ben’s video is “safely handling” his gun.
    careless people should NOT have access to guns!

    Care to expand? I don’t know to what you are referring.

  66. #66 sod
    January 25, 2009

    when he turns towards the camera, he is turning the gun towards it as well.

  67. #67 ben
    January 25, 2009

    when he turns towards the camera, he is turning the gun towards it as well.

    Yes, but it’s pointed at the ground in front of the camera. The cameraman (me) is standing well back and has the camera substantially zoomed in. A small mistake at worst. The rifle is out and the action is locked open anyway.

  68. #68 luminous beauty
    January 25, 2009
  69. #69 ben
    January 25, 2009

    $75 worth of ammo in 44 seconds.

  70. #70 defenseless and dead
    February 16, 2009

    Since everyone is comparing country to country (which is a weak comparison at best) let’s talk about Brazil.

    Brazil is one of the most violent countries on Earth. It has 35,000-39,000 “gun deaths” per year and has 100 million less people than the US.

    It also has much stricter gun laws.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Brazil

    I think this goes with the conclusions from “Bowling for Columbine.”
    The rate of violence in a country has much less to do with the availability of guns and more to do with the culture of the country.

  71. #71 just_another_sheep_dog
    February 11, 2010

    From Gun Facts 5.1

    http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/5.1/gun-facts-5.1-screen.pdf

    Fact: Comparing crime rates between America and Britain is flawed. In America, a gun
    crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a final
    disposition (a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun
    crimes, grossly undercounting the amount of gun crime there.51 To make matters worse,
    British law enforcement has been exposed for falsifying criminal reports to create falsely
    lower crime figures, in part to preserve tourism.52

    Fact: A continuing parliamentary inquiry into the growing number of black market
    weapons has concluded that there are more than three million illegally held firearms in
    circulation – double the number believed to have been held 10 years ago – and that
    criminals are more willing than ever to use them. One in three criminals under the age of
    25 possesses or has access to a firearm. 53

    51 Fear in Britain, Gallant, Hills, Kopel, Independence Institute, July 18, 2000.

    52 Crime Figures a Sham, Say Police, Daily Telegraph, April 1, 1996.

    53 Reported in The Guardian, September 3, 2000.

    Maybe these will make sense to you…

    “Tell the American people never to lose their guns. As long as they keep their guns in their hands, what happened here will never happen there.” – 1990, a student from Beijing, China, describes the last words of her parents, killed at Tiananmen Square”

    “When seconds count, the police can be there in minutes”

    If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson, and pencils cause misspelled words.

    64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

    The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis,
    maintained their neutrality. Dante

    “Free men have arms; slaves do not.” William Blackstone (1723-1780), English jurist
    and professor of common law at Oxford

    “Gun control, the theory that 50 kg. women should have to fistfight with 100 kg. rapists.”
    Chris Morton

    “I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the
    warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.” – J.R.R.Tolkien, The Two Towers

    “That rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of
    democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.” George Orwell

  72. #72 cinsel ilişki
    May 31, 2010

    Do any of you in the USA have the slightest idea that those of us reading this from outside of the USA are thinking ” they carry guns WTF ? ” How terrifying.

  73. #73 sofa _
    October 17, 2010

    At first, I thought the article was about states rights (citing state law and not the Constitution). Consider that Mr. Licoln killed millions to force that federal law onto your state. Ignoring the law of the land, much?

    Then I realized the article was about you wanting me to comply with your feelings. Well, Liberty means you must acknowledge that I exist, and that my existence and opinions are not derived from your permission.

    And I have been endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights; among them Life, Liberty, and Property, and the persuit of my happiness. As I value my life and my family’s lives, it would be counter-logical to not protect our lives and our property.

    “When seconds count, the Police are only minutes away.”

    Being responsible for one’s own self is an ‘individualist’ philosophy that values life; and is enshrined in the founding of our limited form of government.

    Being irresponsible for oneself is un-American.

    ***

    Disarming yourself is your choice.

    But don’t tell me what I can and cannot do! I have God given natural rights acknowledged in the Constitution.

    If there is a federal government, then it’s laws acknowledge the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and those rights shall not be infringed.

    Or there is no law, and I can take you as a slave, for example, since you choose not to value your life enough to protect yourself.

    Is your life not worth defending?
    Or do you insist that my life is not worth defending?
    Or that my rights no longer exist?
    Or that I never had any rights?
    Or that all my rights depend on your feelings?

    Ask the Armenians (1915) about disarmament.
    Ask the Jews throughout Europe (in the 1940’s) about disarmament.

    Here’s some data: http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart

  74. #74 sofa _
    October 17, 2010

    Regarding data cited: Isolated inner city cultures do not follow the data from the rest of the country; as the inner city is more violent with cars, bats, pipes, guns, lumber, and cinder blocks- than the nation as a whole. So it is easy to make false comparisons between dissimilar data pools. I am saying your data is balderdash.

    For example, inner city criminals with guns are more frequently shot than those who are not criminals (and without guns). Inner city gun rates are a guess, since many carry, and only the victims can be counted. And the law-abiding in the city have a hard time legally carrying, because of collective disarmament programs. Leaving the violent criminal victims as the only ones being counted; and SURPRISE, they are violent criminals.

    Citing conclusions which misrepresent the data- suggests that you either didn’t understand it, or understood and used it anyway. We are reminded that philosophers are not mathematicians, nor scientists.

  75. #75 Lotharsson
    October 17, 2010

    > Then I realized the article was about you wanting me to comply with your feelings.

    You mind-read? Interesting…

    > Being responsible for one’s own self is an ‘individualist’ philosophy that values life;…

    Yeah, because the wild wild West was a place that largely embodied individual protection, and accordingly death rates, crime and exploitation were remarkably low, right? It was *such* a successful model that no-one ever felt the need to set up law enforcement bodies…

    > If there is a federal government, …

    That’s confused – there is no uncertainty about that.

    > …then it’s laws acknowledge the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and those rights shall not be infringed.

    You are confusing laws and rights. Laws can be modified or removed by legislative action at any time. Rights may not be infringed – by individuals or the government – which implies that they cannot be removed by legislative action. Even so they can be changed through constitutional amendments (ironically including the 2nd Amendment which is interpreted as entrenching the “right to bear arms”, although nowadays with much less emphasis on the “because a well-regulated militia is necessary for defending against foreign powers and insurrection” bit because that doesn’t obviously lead to the current “I need it to defend myself and my liberty from other individuals” mantra).

    > Or there is no law, …

    Most people don’t have any uncertainty about this being false either, so it really doesn’t add to your argument.

    > …since you choose not to value your life enough to protect yourself.

    Disregarding the false premise you appear to base your hypothetical on…

    …the fact that I do not choose to arm myself does not imply that “…I don’t value my life enough to protect it”. It may be that I can’t afford arms. Or I may have a morality and ethics that judges it better for *society overall* – perhaps because it is believed to *protect more lives overall* – if there are laws and decent law enforcement to prevent (say) the taking of slaves rather than relying on individual firepower.

    I also note that individual firepower is certainly not available to all in equal measure – which means that many people who rely on their own firepower will find themselves outgunned.

    And to continue that thought – most people would argue that the right to bear arms has limits (are individuals allowed to drive tanks? Fly fighter jets? Sail warships? Nuclear weapons?) In that case, there will always be the chance that some criminal element will have more firepower than you legally possess in a given situation – which is ironic, because a favourite gun lobby argument is that if you ban guns “only criminals will have them” thus putting law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage. Then there’s the chance that you’ll be attacked and seriously harmed before you’re even aware of the danger. So it seems that law-abiding citizens may still find themselves at a disadvantage even with their own weapons.

    The limited right to bear arms does not provide the kind of strong protection that is often claimed for it, but it certainly provides increased means for people to cause serious harm to others.

  76. #76 Doc
    December 31, 2011

    A perfect example of making guns illegal for law abiding citizens means less crime: MEXICO

  77. #77 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    December 31, 2011

    Well, it’s clear from the above comments that gun ownership won’t protect people against their own stupidity.

    Instead of addressing the opening post — the point that Moody and Marvell’s methodology was shoddy — they just ignore it and throw out a bunch of talking points.

    — frank

  78. #78 Steven Kippel
    December 23, 2012

    I just wanted to point out someone predicted there would be a revolt in the Armed Services after Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was repealed. I guess that didn’t go as predicted there.

    This discussion is also evidence that gun advocates have one “right” they would actually take up arms to defend: the right to keep arms.