That part sounded a little funny, don't you think? He's arguing that the gun ban is effectively still in place and that the only major improvement is that people can keep their long guns available if no kids are around, and this accounts for a 25% decrease in murders. To me that sounds like an incredible conclusion to make. How about you?On Friday, a federal District Court judge tried to indirectly reinstate the D.C. handgun ban. Judge Ricardo Urbina, a Clinton appointee, wants to make it so difficult for people living in DC to use a handgun defensively that few will get one.
Last September, a Washington Post reporter, Christian Davenport, found out just how difficult it still is to get a handgun in D.C. even after the Supreme Court struck down the city's handgun ban. Excluding the price of the gun, the reporter spent $558.69 in various fees to get through the approval process. But that was only part of the cost. It took him "a total of 15 hours 50 minutes, four trips to the Metropolitan Police Department, two background checks, a set of fingerprints, a five-hour class and a 20-question multiple-choice exam."
So when do these types of regulations constitute just as much of a ban on handguns as an outright ban? A dollar tax solely on newspapers would clearly be struck down as unconstitutional. The power to regulate can destroy both the First and Second Amendments. Despite the costs, about a thousand people may have gotten handgun permits. That is only about 0.2 percent of adults living in D.C. The big change from the 2008 Heller decision might have simply been that D.C. law now requires that gun owners (primarily those owning long guns) only have to store their guns locked and unloaded if minors might have access to them. And it is probably this change that helps explain why D.C.'s murder rate fell by 25 percent the year after the handgun ban was struck down as unconstitutional.
In spite of the statements in “The Bill of Rights” that "Congress shall make no law" or "shall not be infringed," courts don't view constitutional rights as absolutes. Courts now ask whether the benefits from the law outweigh the constitutional rights lost -- so-called "balancing" tests.
Here we've got the old "absolute" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. But, as usual, the "militia" part is left out and all the focus is on the "shall not be infringed."
I always find John Lott to be a bit of a spin doctor. I suppose his opponents are as well. What do you think?
Please leave a comment.
Mikeb: "the only major improvement is that people can keep their long guns available if no kids are around, and this accounts for a 25% decrease in murders. To me that sounds like an incredible conclusion to make."
ReplyDeleteI agree. The real importance of the 25% decrease is that many anti-gunowner advocates were predicting an increase -- and they were wrong.
John Lott's idea of scientific rigour is laughaable--and has been for quite some time:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;300/5618/393
MikeB302000,
ReplyDeleteJust to make sure you've received notice, I'll comment here.
If you want to debate the issues, if you want to discuss the issues -- Let's do so.
See my blog for details. you know where it is.
And so that you won't accuse me of pimping my blog -- I won't link to it here
It's kind of sad in a way.
ReplyDeleteLott, by many accounts, is a very smart guy. But I think he became unhinged when he committed academic fraud and was discovered. Instead of 'fessing up and moving on, Lott doubled down, attempting to whitewash his initial frauds with still more frauds. As a result, he's gone from an endowed chair at the Univ of Chicago to a conservative "think tank" to some research assistant in the Computer Science dept (not his field) at the Univ. of MD--the result of a friendship with a fellow gunloon professor.
Such a creer progression can only be described as a death spiral.
As a result he has gone from being a renowned econometrician to being just another schlub with an opinion.
Of course, FJ has no excuse aside from ignorance. Does he really believe that the effects of Heller can be measured after such a short period?
--JadeGold
Bob, Thanks for the offer but no thanks. I already "debate the issues" every day. I do it in my way, and as I explained to Kevin last year when he made a similar offer to me, I don't have the time to do any more than I already do. What you're proposing would be extremely time consuming because you're the kind of guy who argues tenaciously about things as bizarre as "turn the other cheek" means carry a gun! Your recent incredibly verbose exposition about the Sermon on the Mount somehow disproving the benefits of Health Care Reform made me glad I don't have to engage you regularly any more.
ReplyDeleteSo, no thanks Bob. I realize full well that by turning you down, I'm giving you another club with which to beat me up. So, have at it man. You can spend the next six months or year repeating over and over again how I refused. You can use your mind reading skills to draw all kinds of conclusions, and get your friends to disseminate them as far and wide as you can. Personal attacking is your forte, Bob.
MikeB302000,
ReplyDeleteYou post every day or nearly so about firearms.
All I'm Asking is we establish an agreed upon topic to discuss and discuss the issues.
How much more time would that take then what you already do?
You say you want to talk about the issues but you refuse opportunities to do so.
Come on. Live up to your words.
I am disappointed to hear that you will not participate in a debate MikeB. Much of the reason I spend a lot of time commenting on your blog is because it is probably the only blog on the anti-gun rights side that allows discussion to take place. I much prefer to hear other sides of the argument that I may not have considered. But I do agree with Guav, Sebastian and others that feel that there isn't a whole lot of debating going on. Usually a question is posed, several pro-gun rights supporters chime in with thoughtful comments, and then somebody on your side will comment. Your response is simply an agreement with the anti-gun commenter. Not much of a discussion, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteThe suggestion of debate by Bob S. is an opportunity to discuss some of the core issues that you bring up on here everyday more in depth. What do you have to lose?
I hope that you may reconsider.
JadeGold: "Of course, FJ has no excuse aside from ignorance. Does he really believe that the effects of Heller can be measured after such a short period?"
ReplyDeleteHUH? I wrote the OPPOSITE of what JadeGold seems to think.
I wrote that I AGREE with Mikeb that "that sounds like an incredible conclusion to make."
I also wrote that "The real importance of the 25% decrease is that many anti-gunowner advocates were predicting an increase -- and they were wrong."
Sometimes JadeGold's posts seem to fail the Turing Test.
MikeB: I've yet to see a gunloon debate honestly. Kevin B will ban you once you get the upper hand--which isn't difficult given most of Kevin's arguments are evidence-free or easily shown to be fabricated.
ReplyDeleteIt's also difficult to debate gunloons because they're innumerate; most have no understanding of basic probability and statistics. This means they make fundamental errors such as claiming Heller has resulted in 25% fewer homicides in DC.
I've found that debating a gunloon is akin to debating a religious zealot; their views are shaped by faith and belief not by facts and science. As such, it's an impossible task. I recently debated global warming with someone claiming GW was a hoax. After some time, this guy basically said GW was a hoax because "God wouldn't allow it to happen."
You cannot argue with someone whose argument is based on faith.
--JadeGold
Jadegold,
ReplyDeleteI've stated on my blog and elsewhere that I was non-committal to so so supportive of the 2nd Amendment before I started researching the issue.
I had a family to consider and wanted to know what my options and responses should be.
I looked at the legal, moral and ethical implications of the 2nd Amendment and Self Defense.
I reviewed data, evidence, theory and hypothesis before making my decision.
Sorry but your description of me doesn't fit the bill.
In the Comments sections, I've offered to have Guav or someone else acceptable to both of us moderate the debate.
Again, I stand by my offer to let MikeB302000 set the majority of the terms of the debate. See my blog for details.
MikeB: “He's arguing that the gun ban is effectively still in place and that the only major improvement is that people can keep their long guns available if no kids are around, and this accounts for a 25% decrease in murders. To me that sounds like an incredible conclusion to make. How about you?”
ReplyDeleteI’ll also go on record saying that I agree with MikeB that the 25% decrease is NOT because of Heller. That way Jadegold can claim I said the exact opposite.
Heller meant that DC regressed a slightly more liberal version of its pre-1976 gun laws, which were still fairly strict. Prior to 1976 one could only register a .38 revolver with a 6 inch barrel (well, there were carry permits issues, but for said pistols). There was still the classification of PPW (prohibited personal weapon), which was a firearm with a magazine capacity of over 11 rounds.
ReplyDeleteHeller's registration was rejected since he tried to register a pistol with a magazine capacity of over 11 rounds.
This law passed constitutional muster (as did the Post-1976 Ban see Sandidge v. United States, 520 A.2d at 1058).
Heller will make a joke of the Second Amendment, as will McDonald v. Chicago.
Unless, of course, you have no need for judicial certainty and constitutional process.
Bob S:
ReplyDeleteSo you claim. But you're hardly the first to claim you've done the research. If you debate any gunloon, they'll also claim such things--yet, their arguments are very often factless and bogus. Every gunloon believes the premise that any form of gun control will invariably lead to no guns and enslavement.
As to a moderator, I have to laugh at the notion of Guav. My experience has been is that he views firearms as a fashion accessory and his attitude WRT firearms is shaped by personal anecdote rather than fact. Sebastian is, well, less than honest.
The fact remains that no gun control organization has ever called for a total ban on guns and the gun control regulations would have no or little impact to any truly law-abiding citizen.
--JadeGold
Jadegold,
ReplyDeleteWhy do you feel it is necessary to call me a liar?
You can think what you want, the fact remains that I came to me decision after research and study.
I am here to offer debate of the issues.
I'll make you the same offer. Let's set the terms of the debate -- mutually agreeable since I don't trust you as much as I trust MikeB302000 -- but you can host at your blog or I can do so at mine.
If you and I debate, I'll let MikeB302000 decide if I've gone into personal Attacks.
How is that for being fair?
What do you say? Want to debate the issues?
Want to see the research and data that I've claim to have found?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MikeB302000, Why do you allow these personal attacks on your blog?
Isn't gun loon a derogatory term?
Isn't questioning a person's honesty what got many of my comments deleted?
"Why do you feel it is necessary to call me a liar?"
ReplyDeleteDid I call you a liar? I believe I wrote that many gunloons have claimed to have done the research, etc. In fact, I've never met a gunloon who has claimed, 'gee, I've never looked at any data or studies...'
--JadeGold
Jadegold,
ReplyDeleteYou stated that "So you claim" and then stated that many others claimed to have done the research.
Politely calling people a liar is still calling them a liar.
Now, do you want to debate the issues or do you want to make snide personal attacks?
"You stated that "So you claim" and then stated that many others claimed to have done the research."
ReplyDeleteThat's what I wrote and you're making the assertion this akin to calling someone a liar. That's not terribly honest.
I'll happily debate wherever and whenever but given our brief discussion here, I'm not hopeful of anything.
--JadeGold
Laci: “There was still the classification of PPW (prohibited personal weapon), which was a firearm with a magazine capacity of over 11 rounds.
ReplyDeleteHeller's registration was rejected since he tried to register a pistol with a magazine capacity of over 11 rounds.”
I am pretty sure Heller tried to register a seven shot 1911 pattern semi-auto.
http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=74036&catid=158
I don’t know what DC is trying to claim here (probably that there are aftermarket extended magazines in existence) but it is clear that they are going to give up their gun laws one lawsuit at a time.
Jadegold,
ReplyDeleteQuestioning the integrity or the honesty of a person in the way that you did -- is in fact calling them a liar.
You are polite about it but when you state that I've claimed something you are questioning the veracity of my statement.
Now, let's discuss the terms of the debate.
Would you like to do one idea/item at a time, list 3 to 5 items or what?
Do you want to post your best effort on your blog and I'll post on mine or what?
Let's debate Sparky
Bob, Your little tiff with JadeGold on this very thread is a good example why I won't "debate" with you. That, and the fact, as I've already said, that we're already debating right here every day. It might not be to the satisfaction of you and some of your friends, but it's all I'm interested in doing.
ReplyDeleteWhat you just did with JadeGold is you exaggerated what he said turning it into a greater and more personal attack on you than it really was and then you got all indignant about it. You've done that to me dozens of times, exaggerated and twisted what I actually said and then argued against that as if I'd said it, often acting angry.
MikeB302000,
ReplyDeleteBUNK!
I've offered to subject my comments to moderation.
Note that I'm not requiring or asking you to subject your comments to moderation.
So your excuse of full of holes.
As for Jadegold, being polite about questioning people's honesty is still questioning people's honesty.
I may be a little forthright with my accusations but I'm honest about them. Jadegold was questioning whether or not I researched the subject before making up my mind.
yes or no?
Without evidence, without proof, without substance; he was saying that I only "claimed" to have done that. Linking it with the fact that he found others that had claimed the same and then could not provide facts and figures is conflating me with lying.
Sorry if you don't like it but that is the way I read it.
Thought you allowed people to express themselves here.
I do note that you agree that it was a personal attack. A small personal attack but a personal attack nonetheless
greater and more personal attack on you than it really was
Now, you have gotten indignant when we have used your logic to question your honor or integrity.
Why can't I get indignant when my honor or integrity is questioned?
You certainly don't have a problem with Jadegold expressing himself, do you?
Time and time again you say you want to debate the issues but here you are talking about me and Jadegold instead of the gun ban.
Time and time gain you say you want to debate the issues but here you are talking about how I've insulted you in the past instead of debating the issue.
So, which is it: Do you want to talk about the issues or make personal attacks?
It helps to read and understand:
ReplyDelete"But when he tried to register his semi-automatic weapon, he says he was rejected. He says his gun has seven bullet clip. Heller says the City Council legislation allows weapons with fewer than eleven bullets in the clip. A spokesman for the DC Police says the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to their interpretation, all bottom-loading guns are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns."
So, yes, the 1911A1 is considered a PPW.
If you read what I said in my original post:
Prior to 1976 one could only register a .38 revolver with a 6 inch barrel (well, there were carry permits issues, but for said pistols).
Which just happened to be the sentence before the one you quoted. So, WHY DID YOU MISS SEEING IT?????
Sorry, eventually someone with a brain with twig that the Second Amendment was intended to protect against the establishment of standing armies by having a citizen's militia (think Swiss style military), not personal ownership of arms outside that institution.
But after seeing how you read things, that will be far in the future.
If ever.
Until then, the Concept of the Second Amendment will become more and more bizarre.
Laci: “Prior to 1976 one could only register a .38 revolver with a 6 inch barrel (well, there were carry permits issues, but for said pistols).
ReplyDeleteWhich just happened to be the sentence before the one you quoted. So, WHY DID YOU MISS SEEING IT?????”
Because my comment was not regarding what the law was in 1976. My comment was because you called a 7 shot gun a 12 shot gun which led into how DC does their counting…
“A spokesman for the DC Police says the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to their interpretation, all bottom-loading guns are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns."
What they are doing is calling semi-auto 12 shot guns machine guns, then saying the 12 shots doesn’t even matter because any bottom loading gun could have an extended magazine. This effectively bans all semi-auto pistols save for rare early 20th century stripper clip fed ones. Since DC is being such brats about this, it would have to be challenged under the “common use” clause of Heller in a separate lawsuit, correct?
Laci: “Sorry, eventually someone with a brain with twig that the Second Amendment was intended to protect against the establishment of standing armies by having a citizen's militia (think Swiss style military), not personal ownership of arms outside that institution.”
Do you support citizen’s militias armed with fully automatic weapons then?
I can call a 5 shot revolver a "machinegun" but that doesn't make it so.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, MikeW. DC gives another reason to strongly oppose “Assault Weapons Bans” or “High Capacity Bans”. Once in place they’ll call any and everything an “assault weapon”.
ReplyDeleteMaking it even more ridiculous is that under DC's definition of "machinegun" every single DC cop and Federal LEO in the district is toting around a "machinegun" on their hip.
ReplyDeleteThis is what happens when you let anti-gunners run amok.
Another perfect example was "Brady II" and the "Arsenal license" That legislation contained a provision requiring an "arsenal license" for owning a mere case (1000rds) of ammo.
And folks like MikeB and Demo wonder why we fight against these so-called "common-sense" gun control measures so hard.
Jade on the other hand actually works for a gun control group (or at least he used to) so nothing he says surprises me.
"an "arsenal license" for owning a mere case (1000rds) of ammo."
ReplyDeleteNot just a 1000 rds of ammo, but even 1000 primers. It also required a license for owning more than 20 firearms. And it defined "firearm" as "bolts, firing pins, and magazines."
Don't forget about the unannounced warrantless home inspections and the 50% tax.
ReplyDeleteMikeB302000, Why do you allow these personal attacks on your blog?
ReplyDeleteRemember Bob, Personal Attacks are fine and dandy as long as they're coming from MikeB, Demo, Jade, or some other anti-gunner.
I read about it some days ago in another blog and the main things that you mention here are very similar
ReplyDelete