Ashcroft turns 2ND AMENDMENT on its head, argues for personal right to bear arms

[huntmaster]

WOW, over 100 stories annually of people who used a gun to protect themselves! Maybe the NRA should also include over 100 stories annually on the number of victims who lost their lives to guns. Then, the NRA might become somewhat of an objective source. Until then, I'm surprised you even cited this source to support your argument.

I was simply answering a question posed by musclebrains.---trying to help him.

and you cannot simply discount a source and call them untrustworthy just b/c you do not agree with their stance on the issues.

Your a lawyer right?? If you believe that the NRA is printing lies and these contributions to "The Armed Citizen" are false and misleading-----file suite against them.

 

[musclebrains]

musclebrains,
You conveniently avoided the substance of my prior post, which is that when people have the ability to dfend themselves, crime goes down. It is demonstrable and it is NOT idle speculation. What is the purpose of disarming private citizens? Is it to demonstrate a decline only in the murder rate? Only murder? Is armed robbery OK? Assault? Rape?

I don't understand why you think it logical to separate murder from all other forms of violent crime. The purpose of one's right to self-defense is to defend against all VIOLENT CRIME--not just murder.

Can't remember who first said it: There are three kinds of lies--lies, damned lies, and statistics.

I didnt' avoid the substance at all. Your arguing that one type of crime is affected by a citizen's access to a gun is complete speculation. If you have some actual evidence that an increase in the burglary rate occurs BECAUSE of gun control WHILE the rate of actual gun violence decreases, I'm happy to see it. Otherwise, it's just speculation -- like saying increased sales of marmalade are attributable to outlawing marshmallow cream.

Guns kill. When guns are made inacessible to people, the homocide rate drops. That is a direct correlation.

 

[Train Harder]

If you let the government take away guns what won't you let them take away. There would be no means of defense against a renegade government and this isn't BS it's happened before with Hitler it can happen again. Also why does everyone for gun control avoid the fact that majority of burglars and thieves get they're guns through illegal channels. More laws won't effect them in the least bit. I had to go to a store fill out paper work and wait a week to get my gun. Passing another law to enlong the process won't hinder a single criminal but it would hinder me by having to wait even longer.

 

[huntmaster]

Lets talk about what can be done that will really work. Lets talk about why people commit crimes with guns and what can be done to reverse this.

You see, I believe that we are wasting our time arguing if guns should be taken away from society b/c that is not possible. the only individuals who would not have guns would be the ones that need them.

Lets discuss something that is actually feasable in our society and what can be done to produce better and more responsible individuals who will be less apt to commit crimes with guns and other tools.

---I believe that the problem lies in the heart of man. I believe that the individuals killing are products of our society. a society that glorifies killing and promiscuity through music and movies. a society that no longer holds dear the sanctity of the family and in turn consist of many kids growing up unsupervised and uneducated about important things like guns, sex and drugs/alcohol.

 

[Train Harder]

Really nice spin, but no silver bullet.

This is a typical trick of the gun lobby. They conflate all forms of violent crime -- making no difference between murder and robbery, for example. Then, if the overall rate of violent crime has increased and the particular society has instituted gun control, they claim the latter is to blame.

Of course, this is idle speculation. The only meaningful correlation is between gun availability and the rate of gun-related crime, primarily homocide. Where societies have instituted gun control there has been a drop in the murder rate. I already posted the numbers from Australia's own Board of Statistics. I also posted New York City's.

To say that the increase in burglary or robbery is a result of ordinary people not having access to guns is nothing but speculation. Many other factors contribute to an increase in crime.

As for the comments about the populations of the US and the UK: the RATE of gun-related crime is far lower in the UK (and Canada and Australia), no matter how you try to spin it. If those countries saw a significant decrease in gun-related deaths because of gun control and the US rate remains about the same, it's pretty easy to figure the next step.

Here are some stats and the link to where you can find more:

SELF-DEFENSE & RIGHT-TO-CARRY
Survey research during the early 1990s by criminologist Gary Kleck found as many as 2.5 million protective uses of firearms each year in the U.S. "[T]he best available evidence indicates that guns were used about three to five times as often for defensive purposes as for criminal purposes," Kleck writes. Analyzing National Crime Victimization Survey data, he found "robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all." (Targeting Guns, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997)

Most protective firearm uses do not involve discharge of a firearm. In only 1% of protective uses are criminals wounded and in only 0.1% are criminals killed.

A Dept. of Justice survey found that 40% of felons chose not to commit at least some crimes for fear their victims were armed, and 34% admitted having been scared off or shot at by armed victims. (James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous, Aldine de Gruyter, 1986)

Thirty-three states now have Right-to-Carry (RTC) laws providing for law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for protection against criminals. Twenty-three states have adopted RTC laws in the last 15 years. Half of Americans, including 60% of handgun owners, live in RTC states.

Professor John R. Lott, Jr., and David B. Mustard, in the most comprehensive study to date of RTC laws' effectiveness concluded, "When state concealed-handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell about 8 percent, rapes fell by 5 percent, and aggravated assaults fell by 7 percent. . . . Will allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns save lives? The answer is yes, it will." (Lott, More Guns, Less Crime, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1998)

RTC states have lower violent crime rates on average: 22% lower total violent crime, 28% lower murder, 38% lower robbery, and 17% lower aggravated assault. The five states with the lowest violent crime rates are RTC states. (FBI) People who carry legally are by far more law-abiding than the rest of the public. In Florida, for example, only a fraction of 1% of carry licenses have been revoked because of gun-related crimes committed by license holders. (Florida Dept. of State)

http://www.nraila.org/FactSheets.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=83

 

[BackDoc]

Originally posted by Robert Jan
the whole self defence argument is bullshit. ever had a gun pointed at you and had the time to get yours out of some locker or closet drawer somewhere to defend yourself?

Point to consider: it is an assumption that a law abiding peaceful citizen will not hear and be awakened by a burglar or attacker breaking and entering. Should that citizen then wait until the intruder has a gun pulled on them before escalating the situation to one that will even the odds? The fact that someone might hear an intruder is reason enough that a capable defense might well succeed. Other than that try to envision ANY acceptable defense an elderly woman might have against a male intruder. Not all crimes happen in the middle of the night. Plenty of crimes have been stopped at other times from a law abiding gun owner. THIS IS STAT THAT CANNOT BE VERIFIED SINCE THE TESTIMONIAL IS SILENT: HOW MANY LIVES HAVE GUNS ACTUALLY SAVED WHEN THEY WERE WIELDED BY LAW ABIDING CITIZENS ENFORCING THEIRS AND OTHER'S RIGHTS?

Originally posted by Robert Jan
were you planning to use it to blast that guy who fucked up your life then? thats not self defence... thats planned violent revenge and against your own law.

Thus we are in agreement that taking the law into your own hands AKA retribution is not covered under the umbrella of the right to bear arms by a law abiding citizen. Once the line is crossed from law abiding citizen to criminal intent there is no further inclusion into the former category.

Originally posted by Robert Jan
if you cant see how easy it is to distinguish between an object that has a functional purpose other than injuring or killing a person and one that has not you have no business even thinking about laws like this.

Do not change the reality to serve your side of the argument. A spear was designed to kill, a knife was designed to kill, a gun was designed to kill. That's the intention, but the use is up to the responsibility of the owner or user. Just the same, this is an argument of semantics ONLY as cars were not designed to kill, but may be used to do so voluntarily or involuntarily just the same. That does not make the dead person's loss any different to the family! We don't hear those with loved ones saying they want all cars banned...they push for stiffer punishment for those who violate the law and result in loss of life.

The difference: there is such thing as a logical middle ground to be reached--punish more harshly those who use weapons of any kind (guns, booze, knives, spitballs, beanie babies, flung dung, that duck from above, whatever) but do not restrict freedoms of the responsible citizens. THIS SEEMS TO BE THE PROBLEM WITH LIBERALS PRIMARILY: THEY CANNOT AND WILL NOT ENFORCE CURRENT RULES AND LAWS SO THEY JUSTIFY ADDITIONAL ONES WITH THEIR OWN INCOMPETENCE.

Why is it that some people want the law abiders to follow all of the rules and give up freedoms as well yet the criminals know no such rules and would break them just the same? This is erroneously trying to apply common sense, morals and decency to a societal group of criminals that have none!

Think of it this way: if we didn't have criminals then we'd still need guns--or else we'd have to make some damn good rabbit traps! Funk dat, I'm shooting my food just like I'm growing my own veggies. Guns kill...but not always for negative when they do. When guns are automatically associated with killing in a universal negative connotation then this itself is an injustice. If you were stranded and hungry in some hillbilly hee-haw hell 80 miles from the nearest landmark and you happen to have a gun, would you be willing to use it to produce sustenence? If you cannot distinguish a killing device without ANY different useful application then why should you make the choice for others who are in the know category?

Originally posted by Robert Jan
conclusion is guns should be banned and the us law that allows them is just a stupid sentiment of the part of the american mind that thinks theyre still fucking cowboys from some bad movie.

This is an emotionally driven opinion that is not ground in reality. I resent that as well and urge you to rent the DVD version of Blazing Saddles. Then you will see that cowboys can be quite humorous.

Originally posted by Robert Jan
then the more guns is less crime shit.....the more guns id like to see some research on that.... its bullshit. the usa has a huge ass crime rate and is the only first world country that allows civilians to carry firearms.

You should look at the crime statistics of Kennesaw Georgia, where there is mandatory gun ownership in every household. Crime statistics are dramatically lower than the rest of Metro Atlanta as well as lower than previous years in Kennesaw. Conversely, look at the crime stats of countries where guns have recently been outlawed. Typically crime is dramatically increased. Some here have tried to say, "well crime is increased in those countries but murder is down!". Big deal, a victim is a victim and the reduction in mortality cannot be attributed to outlawing guns.

 

[gymnpoppa]

Lets talk about what can be done that will really work. Lets talk about why people commit crimes with guns and what can be done to reverse this.

You see, I believe that we are wasting our time arguing if guns should be taken away from society b/c that is not possible. the only individuals who would not have guns would be the ones that need them.

Lets discuss something that is actually feasable in our society and what can be done to produce better and more responsible individuals who will be less apt to commit crimes with guns and other tools.

---I believe that the problem lies in the heart of man. I believe that the individuals killing are products of our society. a society that glorifies killing and promiscuity through music and movies. a society that no longer holds dear the sanctity of the family and in turn consist of many kids growing up unsupervised and uneducated about important things like guns, sex and drugs/alcohol.

What he said.

 

[BackDoc]

Here are some stats and the link to where you can find more:

SELF-DEFENSE & RIGHT-TO-CARRY
Survey research during the early 1990s by criminologist Gary Kleck found as many as 2.5 million protective uses of firearms each year in the U.S. "[T]he best available evidence indicates that guns were used about three to five times as often for defensive purposes as for criminal purposes," Kleck writes. Analyzing National Crime Victimization Survey data, he found "robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all." (Targeting Guns, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997)

Most protective firearm uses do not involve discharge of a firearm. In only 1% of protective uses are criminals wounded and in only 0.1% are criminals killed.

A Dept. of Justice survey found that 40% of felons chose not to commit at least some crimes for fear their victims were armed, and 34% admitted having been scared off or shot at by armed victims. (James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous, Aldine de Gruyter, 1986)

Thirty-three states now have Right-to-Carry (RTC) laws providing for law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for protection against criminals. Twenty-three states have adopted RTC laws in the last 15 years. Half of Americans, including 60% of handgun owners, live in RTC states.

Professor John R. Lott, Jr., and David B. Mustard, in the most comprehensive study to date of RTC laws' effectiveness concluded, "When state concealed-handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell about 8 percent, rapes fell by 5 percent, and aggravated assaults fell by 7 percent. . . . Will allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns save lives? The answer is yes, it will." (Lott, More Guns, Less Crime, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1998)

RTC states have lower violent crime rates on average: 22% lower total violent crime, 28% lower murder, 38% lower robbery, and 17% lower aggravated assault. The five states with the lowest violent crime rates are RTC states. (FBI) People who carry legally are by far more law-abiding than the rest of the public. In Florida, for example, only a fraction of 1% of carry licenses have been revoked because of gun-related crimes committed by license holders. (Florida Dept. of State)[/url]

Awesome post!

 

[musclebrains]

Oh boy, good old Kleck, the darling of the NRA, shows up finally.

Unfortunately, his methodoglogy has been quite discredited. One researcher applied it to the citing of alien spacecraft and came to the conclusion that Dr. Kleck's extreme overestimation method meant 20 million americans have seen flying saucers.

You can read Hemenway's analysis of Kleck's guestimating methodology here:

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm

 

[musclebrains]

Do not change the reality to serve your side of the argument. A spear was designed to kill, a knife was designed to kill, a gun was designed to kill. That's the intention, but the use is up to the responsibility of the owner or user. Just the same, this is an argument of semantics ONLY as cars were not designed to kill, but may be used to do so voluntarily or involuntarily just the same. That does not make the dead person's loss any different to the family! We don't hear those with loved ones saying they want all cars banned...they push for stiffer punishment for those who violate the law and result in loss of life.

LOL....Yeah, the incidence of intentional auto manslaughter is enormous.

The intended purpose of an object makes a great difference in its use. I mean, isn't that common sense? The reason you don't hear people calling for cars to be banned because of auto deaths is because the average bozo knows a car serves a purpose other than killing or threatening death.

A gun, on the other hand, has no other purpose, whether used defensively or offensively.