Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Case Study - The failure of gun control laws.

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
    Nightshift va
    Forum Member

  • Nightshift va
    replied
    Gun Control is Unconstitutional.
    End of story.

    Leave a comment:

  • Rev1
    Forum Member

  • Rev1
    replied
    It's against the law to rape someone, buy, sell or use crack and to rob banks.

    People still do it.

    Gun control laws are the single most absurd thing on the books today. I kinda put it up there with out outdated local ordinance that states it's illegal to servive a mare on a public street.

    Who does that today?! Or even back when we still rode horses?

    As far as onwing full auto, who cares?

    Missiles and other high explosives need to be restricted simply because you can't control the inevitable explosion which occurs or the various sharp, nasty bits that fly around from said blast.

    So no LAW rockets, Ducth V40 mini-grenades or C4 for the general public.

    Not even with a tax stamp.

    But a belt fed .50 cal?

    SIGN ME UP!

    Rev

    Leave a comment:

  • JPR
    Forum Member

  • JPR
    replied
    Originally posted by DAL View Post
    I was referring more to weapons such as machine guns and missiles, which some people favor making legal........ .
    Sounds appealing to me if they came equipped with AH seeking nose cones. I wouldn't mind having a set mounted under the left and right sides of the front bumper of my car and on the left and right sides of my forks on my HOG.

    Leave a comment:

  • DAL
    "Official Non-Person"

  • DAL
    replied
    Originally posted by Monty Ealerman View Post
    Hi DAL,

    I live in Chicago, but I don't know Dr. Lott personally. Most non-firearm weapons are not prohibited here, if they're not concealed. You can carry a sword if it's not concealed and you don't have the intention to use the same unlawfully against another. You can carry a firearm in transport condition (unloaded in a case with the ammunition in a separate compartment or in another container) provided that you have the requisite Illinois FOID (Firearm Owner's Identification) card. Dr. Lott started his research with the intention of proving that more guns meant more crime, and when he found out that the opposite was true, he was honest enough to report accordingly.

    Regards,

    Monty
    I was referring more to weapons such as machine guns and missiles, which some people favor making legal. I am dubious about those.

    I met John Lott through a friend who was an economics professor at the University of Arizona and a board member of the Goldwater Foundation. I never inquired about his politics.

    Leave a comment:

  • Monty Ealerman
    Banned

  • Monty Ealerman
    replied
    Hi DAL,

    I live in Chicago, but I don't know Dr. Lott personally. Most non-firearm weapons are not prohibited here, if they're not concealed. You can carry a sword if it's not concealed and you don't have the intention to use the same unlawfully against another. You can carry a firearm in transport condition (unloaded in a case with the ammunition in a separate compartment or in another container) provided that you have the requisite Illinois FOID (Firearm Owner's Identification) card. Dr. Lott started his research with the intention of proving that more guns meant more crime, and when he found out that the opposite was true, he was honest enough to report accordingly.

    Regards,

    Monty

    Leave a comment:

  • DAL
    "Official Non-Person"

  • DAL
    replied
    Originally posted by Monty Ealerman View Post
    Furthermore he checked the records of every county in the US.
    I actually know John Lott. He is very bright and very skilled at econometrics and statistics. His funding does not come from organizations that push an agenda either for or against gun control.

    I trust the integrity of his research and his conclusions.

    Because I value individual freedoms, and because gun regulation is costly, I would have to be convinced that gun control laws were extremely effective if I were to support them. At the very least, Lott's studies dispell the myth that gun control is crime control.

    But people have to understand that his studies do not include all weapons, and cannot be used as proof that we would benefit from eliminating restrictions on owning all types of weapons. Also, I have not kept up with his work, and so do not know whether he has done any research on the impact of shall-issue CCW licenses. I think that the data for such a study would be hard to come by because it takes many years of data to get a statistically significant result, and much of the shall-issue legislation is fairly recent.

    Leave a comment:

  • JPR
    Forum Member

  • JPR
    replied
    Originally posted by Reef_Cop View Post
    PLEASE CHANGE MY VOTE! I accidentally voted yes for some retarded reason.
    If there is a way for a thread starter to change a vote, let me know how to do it and I will. I suspect there is not due to safeguards against mischief, therefore, consider this an official acknowledgement of your vote correction:


    REEF_COP VOTES "NO" ON THE SURVEY QUESTION.

    Leave a comment:

  • Monty Ealerman
    Banned

  • Monty Ealerman
    replied
    Furthermore he checked the records of every county in the US.
    Monty Ealerman
    Banned
    Last edited by Monty Ealerman; 11-03-2009, 02:54 PM.

    Leave a comment:

  • DAL
    "Official Non-Person"

  • DAL
    replied
    Originally posted by Monty Ealerman View Post
    Dr. Lott said "more guns less crime". He found a positive correlation between increased gun ownership and decreased crime rates. I think you meant to say something not dissimilar.
    You are correct. I should have deleted the word "decreased" when I inserted the word "negative" before correllation. Lott's studies are especially important because they control for other variables, and properly use time series analysis.

    Leave a comment:

  • Monty Ealerman
    Banned

  • Monty Ealerman
    replied
    Originally posted by DAL
    ...I find the statistical and econometric studies by Dr. John Lott to be far more persuasive. (Of course, that is not saying much.) However, while there is a negative relationship between increased gun ownership and decreased crime rates, other factors have a far greater influence on the rate of crime. ...
    (emphasis added)

    Dr. Lott said "more guns less crime". He found a positive correlation between increased gun ownership and decreased crime rates. I think you meant to say something not dissimilar.
    Monty Ealerman
    Banned
    Last edited by Monty Ealerman; 11-03-2009, 02:08 PM.

    Leave a comment:

  • ray8285
    Forum Member

  • ray8285
    replied
    Originally posted by DAL View Post

    I think your failure to mention these other figures is materially misleading.

    Yep....it was

    Leave a comment:

  • DAL
    "Official Non-Person"

  • DAL
    replied
    Originally posted by ray8285 View Post
    In the 2009 Forbes list of America's Most Dangerous Cities, St. Louis is not listed in the 15 worst metro areas for crime

    In a November 2008 Congressional Quarterly Press publication, the city of Oakland was rated 5th worst in a nationwide ranking of violent crime.
    It sounds like you are comparing the St. Louis metropolitan area with the City of Oakland. If so, you should use the San Francisco - Oakland metropolitan area instead of the City of Oakland.

    The same Congressional Quarterly publication you reference shows the top five violent crime rankings as follows:

    1 New Orleans, LA 441.40
    2 Camden, NJ 381.84
    3 Detroit, MI 381.24
    4 St. Louis, MO 355.01
    5 Oakland, CA 328.82

    http://os.cqpress.com/citycrime/City...8_Rank_Rev.pdf

    I think your failure to mention these other figures is materially misleading.

    Leave a comment:

  • ray8285
    Forum Member

  • ray8285
    replied
    Originally posted by DAL View Post
    But that was integral to my point, which is that many cities is which a concealed carry is easy to obtain, the crime rate is very high.

    Even though Missouri is a shall-issue state, and St. Louis is in Missouri, the crime rate, including the homicide rate, is higher than in Oakland. Likewise Detroit and New Orleans.


    In the 2009 Forbes list of America's Most Dangerous Cities, St. Louis is not listed in the 15 worst metro areas for crime

    In a November 2008 Congressional Quarterly Press publication, the city of Oakland was rated 5th worst in a nationwide ranking of violent crime.

    Leave a comment:

  • JPR
    Forum Member

  • JPR
    replied
    Originally posted by DAL View Post
    I am not missing the point.

    My point is that your efforts to drawn a generalized inference from what has happened in Oakland are specious. There are many things that affect crime rates, and the mere coincidence of onerous gun control laws with a high crime rate in one city does not prove that the gun control laws caused the high crime rate.. A basic statistics course for undergraduates will teach you that much. Moreover, from a practical standpoint, California's gun control laws have changed little over the last decade. Most of the changes are just "feel good" laws, and to attribute a major increase in violence to those changes makes no sense. Moreover, relying on the absence gun stores in Oakland seems rather lame, given that there is an ample supply nearby.
    Gun control laws are probably futile, but your "reasoning" does not prove anything.

    I find the statistical and econometric studies by Dr. John Lott to be far more persuasive. (Of course, that is not saying much.) However, while there is a negative relationship between increased gun ownership and decreased crime rates, other factors have a far greater influence on the rate of crime. For example, there are indications that, not surprisingly, longer prison terms reduce the rate of crime. If guns are all that matter, how could New York's crime rate be so low?
    1) What is specious about pointing out the fact that Oakland thugs appear to have no problem getting any firearm they desire?

    If you READ what I have written in this thread, you would understand that NOWHERE did I say that gun control laws have increased crime.

    I simply stated the fact that it has failed it's purpose of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals intent on committing gun related crimes. If you can't read what I type, it is you, not I, that needs to go back to school.

    2) Some people may disagree with you about the gun control laws passed over the last 10 years. For instance, several handguns now that are designed for high cap mags need to be sold with 10 shot mags in California, unless you are a gang banger and buy them on the street in which case I imagine you can get the high cap mags. Some popular new handguns (i.e. Ruger LCP 380) are not available in California, last I checked( legally - I imagine the gang bangers will have no problem getting those too.) There are other examples, but you get the point. Again, I did not "attribute a major increase in violence" to these new laws. That is coming from your imagination. See # 1.


    P.S. You have missed the point.
    JPR
    Forum Member
    Last edited by JPR; 11-02-2009, 09:30 PM.

    Leave a comment:

  • DAL
    "Official Non-Person"

  • DAL
    replied
    I am not missing the point.

    My point is that your efforts to drawn a generalized inference from what has happened in Oakland are specious. There are many things that affect crime rates, and the mere coincidence of onerous gun control laws with a high crime rate in one city does not prove that the gun control laws caused the high crime rate. A basic statistics course for undergraduates will teach you that much. Moreover, from a practical standpoint, California's gun control laws have changed little over the last decade. Most of the changes are just "feel good" laws, and to attribute a major increase in violence to those changes makes no sense. Moreover, relying on the absence gun stores in Oakland seems rather lame, given that there is an ample supply nearby.

    Gun control laws are probably futile, but your "reasoning" does not prove anything.

    I find the statistical and econometric studies by Dr. John Lott to be far more persuasive. (Of course, that is not saying much.) However, while there is a negative relationship between increased gun ownership and decreased crime rates, other factors have a far greater influence on the rate of crime. For example, there are indications that, not surprisingly, longer prison terms reduce the rate of crime. If guns are all that matter, how could New York's crime rate be so low?
    DAL
    "Official Non-Person"
    Last edited by DAL; 11-02-2009, 08:28 PM.

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 4089 users online. 262 members and 3827 guests.

Most users ever online was 158,966 at 05:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X