The PJTV site posted a wonderful video outlining the facts behind the upcoming Supreme Court decision on the Chicago Gun Ban.
I liked very much how he described the issue and its importance. But I wondered about a few things he said.
Do you think gun control people "offer up only emotional arguments?" I don't see it that way. In fact I think gun control arguments are often factual and statistical, like how many people are killed each year in murders and suicides with the aid of firearms. You could call that an emotional argument, but I think your reason for doing so is to denigrate your opponent. What's your opinion?
Mr. Hicks spent a few minutes on the old "criminals don't obey laws" routine. This has been completely debunked but pro-gun folks continue to use it. The idea is gun control laws are not aimed at the criminals they are aimed at the law-abiding. The results of proper laws properly enforced upon the law-abiding gun owners results in diminished access to guns by the criminals. It's simple really.
And finally, he said some folks say the 2nd Amendment right applies only to the police and the military. Is that true? I don't think I've heard that one yet.
What's your opinion? His citing of John Lott's study is quite compelling, except for the fact that there are other studies with the exact opposite findings. One thing I do agree with is the question of whether guns do more harm than good is at the heart of the matter.
Please leave a comment.
"Do you think gun control people "offer up only emotional arguments?"
ReplyDeleteDo you read what you write?
"Mr. Hicks spent a few minutes on the old "criminals don't obey laws" routine. This has been completely debunked but pro-gun folks continue to use it."
Where has this been debunked? Provide some links or shut up. Your choice.
"And finally, he said some folks say the 2nd Amendment right applies only to the police and the military. Is that true? I don't think I've heard that one yet."
This coming from someone who worships the Brady Campaign????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
"Do you think gun control people "offer up only emotional arguments?" I don't see it that way. In fact I think gun control arguments are often factual and statistical"
ReplyDeleteCan you show facts to prove that statement?
I'd say that would be the crux of your argument right there.
essentially saying "I don't think our arguments are emotional, I think they're factual" is a pretty darn ironic statement!
"Mr. Hicks spent a few minutes on the old "criminals don't obey laws" routine. This has been completely debunked but pro-gun folks continue to use it."
ReplyDeleteUhhh, if a criminal is obeying the law then is he a criminal? I criminal is someone that commits crime. I have no clue what you mean here. Debunked? Does that mean that the laws do work? If so, we have 20,000 laws covering the full spectrum of firearm use and misuse. If they are working and criminals are obeying them all, then you have your success--no more gun crime
"The idea is gun control laws are not aimed at the criminals they are aimed at the law-abiding."
This is obvious. Like a restaurant that posts a "no guns allowed" sign; do criminals obey that? No, of course not but law abiding patrons do. If a simple sign works, why don't they post a "no robbery" sign up instead? Gun laws are the same way. The law abiding must jump through hoops to comply while the criminals ignore the law. Forget the guns part--we already have laws against murder. Do you really think someone hell bent on committing a violent act is going to be worried about a gun law? The supreme court has already said that you cannot force a criminal to register his illegal gun because of his 5th amendment right to protection from self incrimination. Who then can be charged with violating a gun registration law? An otherwise law abiding citizen, that is who.
"And finally, he said some folks say the 2nd Amendment right applies only to the police and the military. Is that true? I don't think I've heard that one yet."
Really? You haven't heard that one yet? Have you read anything Laci posted? Have you heard about that collective right invention of the 1970s or what Laci likes to call a "civic" right? If a right exists and it is not an individual's right but is rather a right of the collective, who is the collective? The government and all political subdivisions. The only ones within a political subdivision that can possess arms are the military and police and those with executive and police powers. Therefore, if we as individuals do not have the right to bear arms, then the right must belong to the state according to the gun ban crowd.
Who is it that recently posted a slew of posts referencing Laci who advocates that the 2A only applies to the police and the militia?
ReplyDeleteHmmm..let me think.
Seriously, do you have amnesia?
Do you think gun control people "offer up only emotional arguments?" I don't see it that way. In fact I think gun control arguments are often factual and statistical.
ReplyDeleteYes, your position is one of pure emotion and fearmongering. Take a look at your own blog. You don't exactly bring factual arguments to the table here.
You say the "criminals don't obey laws" routine has been "debunked" Where's your factual & statistical argument to back up that statement? Oh I forgot, you don't use facts and logic.
If the gun lobby wins this case it will open a torrent of frivolous pro-gun litigation aimed at all gun laws across the country. State and local communities will be forced to defend well-established laws placing a huge financial burden on our communities, depleting taxpayer dollars that could be spent on improving public safety.
ReplyDeleteAs for Mr. Hicks' reference to John Lott's "More guns, less crime" study - give me a break. Since Lott first published this research there has been a decade of strong, empirical research and writings refuting Lott's dubious claims. (Most recently an article in the Jan 2009 Econ Journal Watch, "Yet another refutation of the More Guns, Less Crime hypothesis - with some help from Moody and Marvell") Enough already - I know gun lovers adore Lott but his work has clearly been debunked.
Want a non-emotional argument? Pick up the latest issue of American Journal of Public Health. The article "Investigating the link between gun possession and gun assault" concludes: "individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession." "On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.Suggestions to the contrary, especially for urban residents who may see gun possession as a surefire defense against a dangerous environment, should be discussed and thoughtfully reconsidered."
Wow...so many topics in one post.
ReplyDelete"Do you think gun control people "offer up only emotional arguments?" "
Not always. Unfortunately, statistics spouted by both sides are often 'rigged'...like the Brady Campaign's claim about number of 'children' killed year year, enhanced by their liberal definition of 'children' (including everyone up to age 20). It seems frequent that, when these stats on either side are proven wrong or disagreed with, things get emotional.
Mr. Hicks spent a few minutes on the old "criminals don't obey laws"...It's simple really.
Don't know enough to comment intelligently, but this doesn't seem quite believable to me. Criminals typically commit multiple felonies in the commission of a crime, before the get to the actual 'crime' (e.g. while heading to rob a store they break a number of laws before they even get to the store).
"...some folks say the 2nd Amendment right applies only to the police and the military."
Some people feel militia=military, so those who claim the 2nd amendment only applies to militias can be interpreted to be saying this. Funny, that concept pops up here quite frequently.
"His citing of John Lott's study..."
Personally, I'm suspicious of Lott's studies and interpretations. He has always seemed a little too interested in finding results to be a certain way rather than being fully impartial.
Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas
ReplyDeleteI'd love to see the methodology of that study, because it screams of BS.
How big was their sample and who was included in it? Did they sample a bunch of urban drug dealers & gang bangers carrying guns illegally?
I guarantee you their sample included predominantly young black males engaged in the drug trade or other criminal activity who didn't have carry permits.
State and local communities will be forced to defend well-established laws placing a huge financial burden on our communities.
GOOD! state and local governments & officials should be punished for violations of the law and for civil rights violations. I think they get off too easily.
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2009/09/30/a-stinker-of-a-study/
ReplyDeleteCathie, that study was some of the sorriest excuse for science I've ever seen.
I'm curious if your "refutation" of Lott's work is any more objective. Remember people like Bellesiles lost their jobs because of the unethical trash they pushed through publication in attempt to refute Lott and garner more funding from the Joyce Foundation.
You did an excellent job at presenting a non-emotional argument. unfortunately its also an argument that doesn't hold up to reality, nor the scientific method.
Cathie said:
ReplyDelete"If the gun lobby wins this case it will open a torrent of frivolous pro-gun litigation aimed at all gun laws across the country. State and local communities will be forced to defend well-established laws placing a huge financial burden on our communities, depleting taxpayer dollars that could be spent on improving public safety."
We can only hope so. It will be wonderful to see all of those silly laws that do nothing to stop crime come tumbling down. As to the cost spent on litigation, you are wrong. If the SC rules correctly, all of these communities with a patchwork of silly laws will just have to drop them. With a SC decision against them there is nothing to spend money on. Who are they going to appeal it to?
"Do you think gun control people "offer up only emotional arguments?" I don't see it that way. In fact I think gun control arguments are often factual and statistical, like how many people are killed each year in murders and suicides with the aid of firearms."
ReplyDeleteIt's an emotional argument because the number of people killed each year with firearms is never put in perspective.
Turns out that less than 0.01% of the population is killed with a firearm each year. That's a very low number for a country that has almost as many guns as people. And it's far from the epidemic gun controllers make it to be.
"individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession."
A flawed statistic because it includes criminals. Criminals, being more likely to own a gun and be shot during the commission of a crime or by other criminals, artificially inflate the numbers. That leads to a problem with their conclusion.
"Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas."
Actually, in urban areas, it's not the people who own guns for self-defense who are being shot. All we have to do is look to the model urban area: Chicago.
Considering guns cannot be owned for self-defense in Chicago, that eliminates all possibility of law-abiding people who own guns for self-defense being shot during an assault. Yet, Chicago still has a remarkably high firearm death rate. Why? Because of criminals.
So their following advice is flawed:
"Suggestions to the contrary, especially for urban residents who may see gun possession as a surefire defense against a dangerous environment, should be discussed and thoughtfully reconsidered."
They're talking to the wrong people. It's not the urban residents who should reconsider gun possession. It's the urban criminals who should do so.
But as always, gun-controllers never address the root of gun violence (criminals). They always go after those who obey the law. Probably because it's less work.
If the race lobby wins this case it will open a torrent of frivolous pro-minority litigation aimed at all segregation laws across the country.
ReplyDeleteAnother option is that they could examine their laws and amend them to be constitutional. Punish the criminals, don't criminalize the law-abiding. Trickle-down law enforcement doesn't work.
"Criminals don't obey laws therefore laws don't work" has been debunked right here on this blog. But for a truly professional rendering of the argument, buy this book and read chapter 2.
ReplyDeleteYou getting a cut on that Brandy Camp action, MikeB?
ReplyDeleteYou could be facing even MORE criminal charges!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33177160/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/