Gun con-troll

“Father Goose, I gotta agree with you about limiting access of guns to nut cases. It can be hard to do. But I think we should at the very least do something constructive. To use your allegory about cars: There are laws limiting the use of cars PROVEN to be irresponsible in their use, and many go to jail, thus making the roads that much safer for all of us. Yes, many do drive after multiple DWI offenses and what have you. Many drive unlicensed, etc...

Why can't the same be done for guns, recognizing that there is no such thing as a perfect failsafe, as in driving. I am certain that many will still own a gun with lesss than pure intentions, same as with cars....

I still think if some one wants a gun and shows the basic ability, as in car driving, they ought to be entitled. 2nd amendment or not, folks who endanger others needlessly or criminally are not entitled to abridge anybody's freedom of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

My position is you are a lawful gun owner, more power to you, if your use it criminally, or show such intentions, you are not entitled.

An observation: I question the ability of a person to use their fire arm in defense against a wild crazed gun toting idiot. It's a great intention to want to protect some one, but when some one is shooting live rounds at you, fear can and will disable many.

One other thing, thanx for responding, Father Goose. I appreciate your real answers and observations.”

“Uphill, a while back on another gun thread, there was a specific discussion of media representation of gun incidents. In particular, it looked at the Appalachian Law School shooting and the fact that the gunman WAS subdued by, as I recall, two students who went to their vehicles and got their own guns. Yet an examination of media reports showed that the story most outlets carried said the gunman was rushed and subdued by other students, while conveniently leaving out the fact the heroes used guns.

As I noted in that thread, based on 15 years in newspapers, the average mainstream reporter and editor knows squat about guns and, because of unfamiliarity, tends to have a bias against them even in hunting-oriented areas like the U.P. and northern lower Michigan.

Again, I refer those who wonder about personal gun ownership's relation to crime to John R. Lott's definitive book on the subject, "More Guns, Less Crime." It is the only rigorous, by accepted academic standards, look at statistical information on the issue.”

“Phaedrus, you silly boy, gun control is hittin' what you aim at!:) Anything else is people control. We must accept the fact that if we choose to live in a free society, there will be some bad actors who will screw things up for the rest of us. We have tens of thousands of firearms laws on the books. We need only enforce a fraction of the existing ones. What possible good can more laws do when, criminals, by definition, do not obey the law? If you read the statements by the advocates of 'gun control', you will see many now openly advocate the abolition of private firearms ownership and the second amendment.
The possession of firearms cannot be compared to car ownership because your priveledge to own an automobile is just that; a priviledge. It is not the constitutionally guaranteed right protected by the second amendment.
This constitutional right is now under fire by those who do not trust private citizens with the means to hunt, shoot recreationally or protect themselves. There is a movement afoot to amend the Constitution abolishing the second amendment. That is why the NRA and people like me fiercely resist any more abridgemnet of our constitutional rights. The end goal of the Brady Bunch and their ilk is the same; to disarm us entirely. I, for one, will not stand for it.
To paraphrase a guy you fellers like to poke a lot of fun at "...from my cold, dead fingers..."
That includes my tater cannon, too (which, by the way, is illegal now in some communities).”

“I've always wondered why people assume there is some conspiracy afoot when the culprit is sloppy reporting.

Is it simple paranoia?

It seems that the pressure of competition to get the story out first and the "If it bleeds, it leads" methodology combine to lower the bar, at least where local news is concerned.

Pekka, does Lott's book examine all types of incedents? Crimes, acts of defense, hunting accidents, accidents in the home... ?”

“Tilt old hoss, why not read the book and find out for yourself? While you're at it, read some of professor Gary Kleck's work.”

“I have things to do that I find much more enjoyable, LOL”

“"--"You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free."
-- Clarence Darrow (1920)"
Tommy Gun
07:15:19 PM
05/11/02

I am glad to see you use a quote from one of the greatest liberals of this century.”

“I understand. However, if you're really serious about understanding the issue, I'd think you'd want to get as much info as possible. But then, some people don't like to be confused by the facts, LOL.”

“Whoops, Chili slid one in on me. My last post was directed at Tilt.”

“Pekka, I agree that mainstream reporting often shows a bias, so how come the NRA does not have a publication showing the other side of the coin, which of course, would be their bias? Then there would be 2 sides of the coin to accurately judge.”

“I don't mean to be a smart-ass --- there simply aren't enough hours in the day. As I have stated more than once, this isn't my area of interest. I would be be more than happy to answer questions for people in areas where I do have pertinent knowledge.”

“Tilt, it's a thick book, and the revised edition includes Lott's responses to criticisms of the first edition, again with reasoned thought and presentation of facts. It is an academic work, not a hysterical screed.”

“The NRA has several publications and they do carry accounts of citizens using their firearms for self protection. So do some of the firearms magazines on the newstands. They get accused of biased reporting, of course, too.”

“BTW, P.J. O'Rourke is on C-SPAN right now, talking about Liberterianism.”

“The Ayn Rand Show starts in 2 minutes... <VBG>”

“I didn't mean to imply anything about Lott's work in any way... I just wonder about *all* incidents...”

“Tilt old buddy, you have my apologies for implying otherwise.”

“"--Only an armed people can be the real bulwark of popular liberty.
V.I. Lenin"


Holy Moly! Tommy Gun quoted Lenin! Maybe that means the NRA isn't just lousy with crypto liberals, but is backed by crypto-Leninists. Or, perhaps Tommy Gun made the mistake of quoting from texts he had not read (or that he did not even know much about?).”

“Just wondering, FG... What is the significance of the recurring Ageing Equine references?”

“And what the heck was that Critter on Leonard Peikoff's head?”

“Huh?”

“"Old Hoss"

HAHAhhahhhaahahaha...”

“Har, har, there Tilt. Ya got me! :D
Who the hell is Leonard Peikoff?”

“Seriously though. For people who side with the NRA on the second amendment, how do you get to the conclusion that it applies to rifles and pistols, but not to most other kinds of arms (from anti-tank missles to nuclear weapons)?”

“He's an old buddy of Ayn Rand who was on C-SPAN this afternoon... with worst rug in seventeen states, LOL. I was wondering if it was covered by the Endangered Species Act!

Oops! Sorry about the 'thread degradation'.”

“THE COLD, HARD FACTS ABOUT GUNS

Chicago Tribune, May 8, 1998, NORTH SPORTS FINAL EDITION


By John R. Lott Jr., the John M. Olin law and economics fellow at the University of Chicago School of Law and the author of "More Guns, Less Crime."

America may indeed be obsessed with guns, but much of what passes as fact simply isn't true. The news media's focus on only tragic outcomes, while ignoring tragic events that were avoided, may be responsible for some misimpressions. Horrific events like the recent shooting in Arkansas receive massive news coverage, as they should, but the 2.5 million times each year that people use guns defensively are never discussed--including cases where public shootings are stopped before they happen.

Unfortunately, these misimpressions have real costs for people's safety. Many myths needlessly frighten people and prevent them from defending themselves most effectively.

Myth No. 1: When one is attacked, passive behavior is the safest approach.

The Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey reports that the probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the benefits are smaller: offering no resistance is 1.4 times more likely to result in serious injury than resisting with a gun.

Myth No. 2: Friends or relatives are the most likely killers. The myth is usually based on two claims: 1) 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances and 2) anyone could be a murderer.

With the broad definition of "acquaintances" used in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, most victims are indeed classified as knowing their killer. However, what is not made clear is that acquaintance murder primarily includes drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by first-time customers, gang members killing other gang members, prostitutes killed by their clients, and so on. Only one city, Chicago, reports a precise breakdown on the nature of acquaintance killings: between 1990 and 1995 just 17 percent of murder victims were either family members, friends, neighbors and/or roommates.

Murderers also are not your average citizen. For example, about 90 percent of adult murderers have already had a criminal record as an adult. Murderers are overwhelmingly young males with low IQs and who have difficult times getting along with others. Furthermore, unfortunately, murder is disproportionately committed against blacks and by blacks.

Myth No. 3: The United States has such a high murder rate because Americans own so many guns.

There is no international evidence backing this up. The Swiss, New Zealanders and Finns all own guns as frequently as Americans, yet in 1995 Switzerland had a murder rate 40 percent lower than Germany's, and New Zealand had one lower than Australia's. Finland and Sweden have very different gun ownership rates, but very similar murder rates. Israel, with a higher gun ownership rate than the U.S., has a murder rate 40 percent below Canada's. When one studies all countries rather than just a select few as is usually done, there is absolutely no relationship between gun ownership and murder.

Myth No. 4: If law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns, people will end up shooting each other after traffic accidents as well as accidentally shooting police officers.

Millions of people currently hold concealed handgun permits, and some states have issued them for as long as 60 years. Yet, only one permit holder has ever been arrested for using a concealed handgun after a traffic accident and that case was ruled as self-defense. The type of person willing to go through the permitting process is extremely law-abiding. In Florida, almost 444,000 licenses were granted from 1987 to 1997, but only 84 people have lost their licenses for felonies involving firearms. Most violations that lead to permits being revoked involve accidentally carrying a gun into restricted areas, like airports or schools. In Virginia, not a single permit holder has committed a violent crime. Similarly encouraging results have been reported for Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Tennessee (the only other states where information is available).

Myth No. 5: The family gun is more likely to kill you or someone you know than to kill in self-defense.

The studies yielding such numbers never actually inquired as to whose gun was used in the killing. Instead, if a household owned a gun and if a person in that household or someone they knew was shot to death while in the home, the gun in the household was blamed. In fact, virtually all the killings in these studies were committed by guns brought in by an intruder. No more than four percent of the gun deaths can be attributed to the homeowner's gun. The very fact that most people were killed by intruders also surely raises questions about why they owned guns in the first place and whether they had sufficient protection.

How many attacks have been deterred from ever occurring by the potential victims owning a gun? My own research finds that more concealed handguns, and increased gun ownership generally, unambiguously deter murders, robbery, and aggravated assaults. This is also in line with the well-known fact that criminals prefer attacking victims that they consider weak.

These are only some of the myths about guns and crime that drive the public policy debate. We must not lose sight of the ultimate question: Will allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns save lives? The evidence strongly indicates that it does.”

“"I've always wondered why people assume there is some conspiracy afoot when the culprit is sloppy reporting.

Is it simple paranoia?

It seems that the pressure of competition to get the story out first and the "If it bleeds, it leads" methodology combine to lower the bar, at least where local news is concerned.

Pekka, does Lott's book examine all types of incedents? Crimes, acts of defense, hunting accidents, accidents in the home... ?"
Tilt
------------------------

When It's Guns, Media Miss Big Part Of Picture

BYLINE: By JOHN R. LOTT JR. , Investor's Daily

There continually seems to be some new crime committed with a gun. When more than one person gets killed, the crimes get not only national but international news coverage. On the other hand, when was the last time that you heard the national evening news reporting about a citizen using a gun to save lives? 

Few people realize that people use guns defensively to stop about 2 million crimes a year, according to national surveys. Some of this lopsided coverage is understandable: an innocent person's murder is more newsworthy than a victim brandishing a gun and the attacker running away, with no crime committed. 

Unlike crimes avoided, bad events provide emotionally gripping pictures. Yet covering only the bad events creates the impression that guns only cost lives. 

But this neither explains the dramatic heroic stories that are left uncovered nor the crimes that are newsworthy enough to be covered but for which important details are left out. Possibly the press doesn't want to encourage vigilantism, possibly it has some other reason, but stories where guns save lives never get more than minor local news coverage.

Three of the recent 16 cases I know of illustrate where guns have protected people, but the news coverage never extends beyond a short report in the local media. 

Bogalusa, La.: On Jan. 25, four men ages 17 to 25 attempted robbing a woman dying of cancer at gunpoint. The woman, who weighs only 85 pounds, takes pain medication, including OxyContin, which the men reportedly wanted to steal. A small newspaper described the plan: "One guy went in on a pretense to visit. He was to open the door, then the others were to rush in, put a gun on him and say 'Get down.' The others were wearing ski masks." But the woman's 13-year-old son saw the masked men before they broke into the house and got the family's .20 gauge shotgun. He fired a shot, wounding one of the criminals and causing the criminals to run away.

Englewood, Fla.: An enraged husband goes to a bar where his wife works and attacks her with a knife. A couple of employees come to the wife's aid but they are severely cut by the husband. He was stopped only when a man with a permitted concealed handgun held the attacker at gunpoint until the police arrived. 

Rock Springs, Texas: Three illegal aliens broke into a pregnant woman's home, 50 miles from the Mexican border. The woman, who was awakened from a nap, saw one man in her house after he kicked open the door. Two others were cutting through a screen window. She shot the one in the house, killing him and causing the other two to flee.

These examples are all too typical, but even more disturbing are the stories that get news coverage but leave out how guns were used to save lives. One example is the Jan. 16 shooting at the Appalachian Law School in Virginia that left three dead. With all the massive worldwide news coverage, everyone is familiar with the crime, but almost no one knows how it was actually stopped. Out of hundreds of stories, just four mentioned that the students who stopped the attack had guns, and only two of those (both in local Virginia newspapers) mentioned that the guns were used to force the killer to drop his gun. 

Little Detail 

The Washington Post simply wrote that the students "helped subdue" the killer. Other media simply noted that: "Students tackled the man while he was still armed," "Students tackled the gunman" or "Students ended the rampage by confronting and then tackling the gunman, who dropped his weapon." Many stories did mention the students had law enforcement or military backgrounds, but provided no more detail on how they stopped the attack. 

Yet, as one of the students, Tracy Bridges, described what happened: "I aimed my gun at him, and (the killer) tossed his gun down." It was only then that the students tackled the killer. Bridges told this story to over 50 reporters and said he was "shocked" by how the press reports completely left out how he had used the gun to stop the criminal.

Selectively reporting events endangers lives. It misinforms people about the safest course of action when confronted by criminals.

John R. Lott Jr. is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
and the author of "More Guns, Less Crime."”

“http://www.tsra.com/LottPage.htm

Alot of good reading......”

“Hey Tilt. I read all her books years ago, but I never heard of Leonard. The part of my hair that's not turning grey is turning loose, but when it's gone far enough I'll just shave the whole mess and get a big, gold earring (for the left side, of course).
As for your leap of logic question, I can only say that, personally, I feel that I should have access to any weapon my government might use against me should it turn despotic, dictatorial...you get the idea. Obviously, large armaments such as tanks, nukes, etc. would be a little impractical for the average homeowner, LOL. Hell, I wish nukes didn't exist, but there you are.
I guess that when you get down to the crux of the biscuit (any Zappa fans out there?) I believe that we are ultimately responsible for our own safety and well-being and that in the final analysis that we are the only ones we can count on to provide it. Small arms provide that immediate measure of protection. As Robert Heinlein (did I spell that right?) said, "An armed society is a polite society", by which he meant, of course, that people are more careful not to give offense if the consequences could be dire. By extension, a criminal will think twice or probably defer, if he thinks his intended victim might be armed.
Even if, by some miracle, crime was eradicated from the face of the Earth I would still want to have a gun for recreational shooting. I simply enjoy the sport.”

“This may come back to bite me in the a$$, but here goes.
Tommy, do you have an original thought in your head? The bulk of your posts are quotations from other sources, with very little insight on your part. When you do that, you're no better than evildoer or buttpacker. It's people like you that give the NRA a bad name. For chrissakes, boy, put down your book of Wayne LaPierre's quotations and use your brain, if you have one.











(Note to self: hold on for the ride, son, this could get ugly....)”

“Sorry, Ped. You had the leap of logic question. Hope I answered it to your satisfaction. If not, c'est la vie!”

“Doh! 5 yard penalty that is... posting without proofreading... Argh.”

“Now THAT'S gun control!”

“"The crux of the biscuit... is the apostrophe."

(my boots are still too new to have developed Stink Foot yet, <G>)

Dr.(?) Leonard Peikoff ("pie-coff") is Ayn Rand's legal, and it would seem, intellectual heir. I guess they were pretty close. Perhaps he was 'the son she never had'. He's one freaky ol' dude, lemme tell ya!


As for The Media, the few times I've been in posession of "expert knowledge", the media didn't exactly shine. Was there a political slant to their reporting of Y2K? Nah... I think they were just slack.

But ANYway...”

“"One Wrong Move And The Nose Gets It!"

Woody Allen
Sleeper (1973)”

“FG: You provided your personal take on it (why only handguns and rifles?) thats all I can ask.”

“I can aim it, shoot it, put it away, I controll it great!

To ped, it's the National Rifle Asso. , not the National Nuclear Arms Asso. ....... Yer goin after the wrong group here!”

“BTW: I took a short day hike today. On the way back, I passed a parked car that had its headlights on. I looked and noticed that one of the car doors was unlocked. There was nobody around, so it seemed like the owners were probably hiking. It was a drizzly day with poor visibility and lots of cars had their headlights on for safety while driving.

Usually when it looks like someone is going to have their batteries run down in a situation like this, I will open the car door and turn the headlights off. Even though there is some danger of misunderstanding, the thought of some absent minded driver not being able to start up the car because the batteries are drained compleels me to do something (esp. since I have made this mistake myself).

In this case, the car had two bumper stickers: "Got Ammo?" and "This car protected by [picture of a pistol]." Seeing this raised the stakes just enough, that I figured I'd rather not risk a misunderstanding by opening the rear door of a strangers car in order to lean over and turn off the headlights.

It made me think about this and the other handgun threads.”

“You could have shot the headlights out iffin you was packin heat.”

“Now THAT's one I NEVER would've thought of, BOL!”

“Kewl Idea Strat... that would have at least answered the question on the bumper sticker (got ammo?).”

“Gawd, I just had a horrible thought. Do y'all suppose that tommygun, evildoer and thebuttpacker are the same person? They seem to have the same m.o. If so, that is one warped cat!
(shudder!)”

“No way Father G, no one's THAT bi-polar! I hope......”

“Kinda boggles the mind, doesn't iot?”

“Uh, that was supposed to be "it".”

“Theree is ni nead to apolajiz fer tipe-o's oor msisspallang.”

“That's it, I'm going to bed. I can't see for $hit!”

“lol, me too”

“Tommy Gun, I gotta say thanx for quoting actual incidences and occurences, very interesting. Those are probably the only kind of quotes that add to a conversation. Quoting some one else's ideaology really doesn't add to the discussion though. So let's hear your ideaology............”