Gun Control Found To Be Ineffective

[Nihilist]

AP National News
October 02. 2003 8:41PM

Impact of Gun Control Laws Questioned

By KRISTEN WYATT
Associated Press Writer

A sweeping federal review of the nation's gun control laws - including mandatory waiting periods and bans on certain weapons - found no proof such measures reduce firearm violence.

The review, released Thursday, was conducted by a task force of scientists appointed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC said the report suggests more study is needed, not that gun laws don't work. But the agency said it has no plans to spend more money on firearms study.

Some conservatives have said that the CDC should limit itself to studying diseases, and some have complained in the past that the agency has used firearms-tracking data to subtly push gun control. In fact, since a 1996 fight in Congress, the CDC has been prohibited from using funds to press for gun control laws.

Since then, the task force reviewed 51 published studies about the effectiveness of eight types of gun-control laws. The laws included bans on specific firearms or ammunition, measures barring felons from buying guns, and mandatory waiting periods and firearm registration. None of the studies were done by the federal government.

In every case, a CDC task force found "insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness."

"I would not want to speculate on how different groups may interpret this report," said Dr. Sue Binder, Director of CDC's Center for Injury Prevention and Control. "It's simply a review of the literature."

Most of the studies were not funded by the CDC. Gun-control advocates quickly called on the government to fund better research.

A spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said the laws work, but it is nearly impossible to prove it because people can buy guns in one state and carry them into one of the handful of states with strong antigun measures.

"It's hard to study whether gun control laws work in this country because we have so few of them," said Peter Hamm. "Talking about studying gun control in this country is like talking about studying democracy in Iraq."

The National Rifle Association said it needed more time to review the report before commenting on it.

Firearms injuries were the second leading cause of injury deaths, killing 28,663 people in 2000, the most recent year for which data was available. About 58 percent of the deaths were suicides. Gun accidents claimed about 775 lives that year.

About the only conclusion the task force could draw from the surveys was that mandatory waiting periods reduced gun suicides in people over 55. But even that reduction was not big enough to significantly affect gun suicides for the overall population.

The task force complained that many of the studies were inconsistent, too narrow, or poorly done.

"When we say we don't know the effect of a law, we don't mean it has no effect. We mean we don't know," said Dr. Jonathan Fielding, chairman of the CDC task force. "We are calling for additional high-quality studies."

Among the problems:

- Studies on firearm bans and ammunition bans were inconsistent. Some showed the bans decreased violence; others found the bans actually increased violence. Many firearm bans grant exemptions to people who already owned the weapons, making it hard to tell how well a ban worked. Other evidence showed that firearms sales go up right before bans take effect.

- Studies on background checks were also inconsistent, with some showing decreased firearm injuries and others showing increased injuries. A major problem with those studies, the report said, was that "denial of an application does not always stop applicants from acquiring firearms through other means."

- Only four studies examined the effectiveness of firearm registration on violent outcomes, and all of the findings were again inconsistent.

- Too few studies have been done on child-access gun laws to gauge their effectiveness.

- Study periods often are too narrow to tell whether gun laws work. The task force noted that "rates of violence may affect the passage of firearms laws, and firearms laws may then affect rates of violence."

---

 

[Nihilist]

im going to post tis on deantalk.com as well lmao.

 

[Nihilist]

personal responsibilty is alive and well.

 

[PCxPete]

i think you could argue that the reason is that a lot of handgun related killings arnt from guns people buy in the shops, but off the streets.

in australia gun laws are super strict, and no one gets shot.

its great.

 

[Nihilist]

the laws are doing nothing. those that would kill or maim are still doing it, while the decent ppl are still being decent.

 

[EnderJE]

My 2cents.

Hmm. One COULD argue that gun control would prevent gun crimes (or more correctly "gun accidents") as the decreased availability would prevent them from being accidentally found by childing and going off. As well, one could argue that those who commit "crimes of impulse" would have more time to "think it over" and not reactively reach for a gun and kill someone.

Those who are DETERMINED and take the time to plan out their crimes will probably NOT be hampered by gun control as they will probably find another method to commit their crimes (knife, poison, passenger airplane, etc).

I think if you really want to stop gun crimes then the government should be addressingthe victim / instant gratification / fear mentality.

Unfortunately, I don't see that as being possible because those three sell alot.

At the same time, I can't see any reason why anyone needs to own a tech 9 or a M16 (saw it on The Shootist).

 

[manny78]

It never worked. Not even in USSR, Cuba or Nazi Germany. Even in Canada, crime rate didnt change...

 

[manny78]

At the same time, I can't see any reason why anyone needs to own a tech 9 or a M16 (saw it on The Shootist).

I dont see why would anyone need a car that can reach 200 km/h since the limit is 100...

 

[EnderJE]

I agree and don't see the point either. Sure, 130 - 140 I could see for passing. But 240?

 

[DeepZenPill]

If you choose to do some research on this issue, there are a great deal more studies which actually show that gun control exacerbates problems.

“In the four years after the U.K. banned handguns in 1996, gun crime rose by an astounding 40%. Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%”
-Dr. John R. Lott Jr., professor at the University of Chicago Law School

Between 1977 and 1992, 10 states passed right-to-carry laws which enabled registered gun owners to carry handguns. After the adoption of the laws in these 10 states, there was no change in suicide rates, a .5% rise in accidental firearm deaths, a 5% decline in rapes, a 7% decline in aggravated assaults, and an 8% decline in murder.

Keep in mind that most guns involved in crimes are obtained illegally. Gun control in the legal market is not going to affect these potential crimes.

I'm all for background checks, ballistic fingerprinting, and child locks. I don't see these measures hurting anything. Background checks do have flaws though; there is no statute of limitations on a previous crime which can keep you from buying a gun. If you did something stupid at 18, you won't be able to get a gun when you're 50. Ballistic fingerprinting can be useful, but it can also be a problem if the gun is stolen. If the gun was fired by anyone else, the registered owner is still the one tied to the crime. And I really don't see one good argument against child locks.

 

[beastboy]

If you choose to do some research on this issue, there are a great deal more studies which actually show that gun control exacerbates problems.

“In the four years after the U.K. banned handguns in 1996, gun crime rose by an astounding 40%. Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%”
-Dr. John R. Lott Jr., professor at the University of Chicago Law School

Between 1977 and 1992, 10 states passed right-to-carry laws which enabled registered gun owners to carry handguns. After the adoption of the laws in these 10 states, there was no change in suicide rates, a .5% rise in accidental firearm deaths, a 5% decline in rapes, a 7% decline in aggravated assaults, and an 8% decline in murder.

Keep in mind that most guns involved in crimes are obtained illegally. Gun control in the legal market is not going to affect these potential crimes.

I'm all for background checks, ballistic fingerprinting, and child locks. I don't see these measures hurting anything. Background checks do have flaws though; there is no statute of limitations on a previous crime which can keep you from buying a gun. If you did something stupid at 18, you won't be able to get a gun when you're 50. Ballistic fingerprinting can be useful, but it can also be a problem if the gun is stolen. If the gun was fired by anyone else, the registered owner is still the one tied to the crime. And I really don't see one good argument against child locks.

Check your PM's.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

gun control = hit where you aim

 

[Kalashnikov]

At the same time, I can't see any reason why anyone needs to own a tech 9 or a M16 (saw it on The Shootist).

If citizens were only allowed to own what they "needed", gun ownership would be restricted to a .38 revolver and a single-shot shotgun. After all, no one "needs" to hunt anymore, so hunting rifles would have to be turned in.

If you ban AR-15's and M-16's, it only makes sense to ban "high-powered" bolt action rifles as well. These hunting rifles, when fitted with decent optics, are accurate out to hundreds of yards and can be used in "sniper-style" shootings.

Look up Charles Whitman and the sniper shootings in Texas. He managed to kill well over a dozen people and injure many more by shooting at long ranges, using only hunting rifles with scopes.

 

[manny78]

If citizens were only allowed to own what they "needed", gun ownership would be restricted to a .38 revolver and a single-shot shotgun. After all, no one "needs" to hunt anymore, so hunting rifles would have to be turned in.

If you ban AR-15's and M-16's, it only makes sense to ban "high-powered" bolt action rifles as well. These hunting rifles, when fitted with decent optics, are accurate out to hundreds of yards and can be used in "sniper-style" shootings.

Look up Charles Whitman and the sniper shootings in Texas. He managed to kill well over a dozen people and injure many more by shooting at long ranges, using only hunting rifles with scopes.

A good example is Brazil. There, you can't own anything over .38spl, .380ACP, 12Ga or .22LR. No reloading stuff too. And guess what ? Brazil has one extremely high crime rate.

 

[BigAndy69]

A good example is Brazil. There, you can't own anything over .38spl, .380ACP, 12Ga or .22LR. No reloading stuff too. And guess what ? Brazil has one extremely high crime rate.

Do you really think brazil is a good example? They have there own problems, Police(funded by the US) and Drug Dealers fighting for money and civilians getting caught in the crossfire.

 

[manny78]

Do you really think brazil is a good example? They have there own problems, Police(funded by the US) and Drug Dealers fighting for money and civilians getting caught in the crossfire.

Yes it is. Honest citizens can't own anything or carry a gun. Crime rate would definitely not be the same with CCW and no stupid rules. And of course, a non-corrupted police.

 

[[email protected]]

If citizens were only allowed to own what they "needed", gun ownership would be restricted to a .38 revolver and a single-shot shotgun.

A 38 revolver is a very good gun. Stronger then a .380 and a 9mm. However, one could argue the need for 4 more rounds and get the lower 9mm cartridge. I can also argue that a 38 and a 9mm is not effective at stopping someone. I personally hit someone with a 9mm several times and they did not go down. It was a good shooting and I was cleared. The perpetrator had a revolver and fired first.

Another time with a 38 using +P cartridges firing through a windshield left the perp unharmed because the bullets were still in the windshield or just dropped into the car when they went through. Some did get through pretty hard but they missed the target. The only reason why the shooting stopped is because we both ran out of bullets.

One shot in a shotgun is not sufficient. There is an assumption that there is only one perpetrator and the first shot will hit the target.

The objective of any firearm is not to hurt or kill. It is to stop the immediate danger to your life or the life of a third party. Also to prevent or stop serious physical injury.

Gun control laws only impact law-abiding citizens. With gun control you are disarming the citizens and allowing the criminals to keep their guns. This is why you see spikes in crimes after gun control laws are passed. The criminals know they are going against someone that most probably cannot match their force. This makes an easy target.

If you take note of the people that support gun control are the same ones that are escorted under guard. Rosie and others who routinely are escorted under armed guard are the ones that are most outspoken about gun control. Gun control is usually pushed by those who would be least affected by it or has been brainwashed by listing to the liberal political propaganda.

Police are also anti gun. This is because they would be exempt from this ban and could still keep their carry permits long after they have retired. Another group that would be least affected by a ban. Police encounter 99% of the time “illegal handguns” that would not be impacted under any ban.

Owning an M16 or an AK? There is no real difference between those two guns and a standard rifle. The 223 is a small light round. The 30 cal (non NATO) is not that large either. They only things that assault weapons have that standard bolt actions do not, are the rate of fire and the magazine capacity. Either way all guns can leave you just as dead. If someone is intent on killing someone it doesn’t matter if he has an AK or a hunting rifle as we have just learned.

Cars kill people. Liquor kills people. War kills people. The list goes on but it seems that most Americans like to drive and drink so they would never suggest a ban. If car bans would occur non-drivers who state people who do drive are victimizing them would most likely start it. Those who now BELIEVE that they are being victimized too will support it. (re-read about liberal propaganda) If some politician thinks he can rack some votes up then be prepared to turn your keys in.


Here's the wife in the yard again! Yes, really dangerous if you are a coffee can.

 

[[email protected]]

Frogot to mention... 9mm in the winter and a 45 in the summer is what I carry...

Sig 228 9mm and a Glock 30 45ACP. On occasion when I feel like dressing up my Colt 45 Defender.

 

[manny78]

Frogot to mention... 9mm in the winter and a 45 in the summer is what I carry...

Sig 228 9mm and a Glock 30 45ACP. On occasion when I feel like dressing up my Colt 45 Defender.

I traded my G22 for a Sig P225. Sweetest handgun ever. Just 8 rounds but fits like a glove in my hand.

 

[[email protected]]

22 is a big gun (40).

 

[Tarheel]

At the same time, I can't see any reason why anyone needs to own a tech 9 or a M16 (saw it on The Shootist).

And there's no reason for guys who sit behind desks to lift weights all the time either.

But we lift weights because we love it, its our recreation. Some of us want M16s because that's our recreation, we like to shoot guns, and military style weapons are great guns to shoot. They're usually well made, fairly accurate for open site guns, rugged, easy to use, hold lots of ammo (less time spent reloading, more time shooting cans or targets), etc.

 

[[email protected]]

Against what most of the liberal media portrays. When I am shooting the last thing on my mind is having a person stand in front of my gun.

It’s just a sport. How close can you come to hitting your target dead on? How fast can you do it? How fast can you reload?

I remember on Bowling for Columbine there was a comparison made to the right of owning a nuclear weapon to owning a machine gun. If people with assault rifles can state it is their right to own one then where is the line drawn? This comes to the argument on “reasonable” which most of the anti gun grabbers are using to influence partial bans.

Unlike an assault weapon, a single nuclear device requires hundreds of thousands of dollars to maintain. You need scientist and physicist to monitor them constantly. With this said, if you live in the United States and pay taxes, you already own a nuclear weapon. Just because it isn’t in your garage doesn’t mean you don’t own it.

 

[atlantabiolab]

I remember on Bowling for Columbine there was a comparison made to the right of owning a nuclear weapon to owning a machine gun. If people with assault rifles can state it is their right to own one then where is the line drawn? This comes to the argument on “reasonable” which most of the anti gun grabbers are using to influence partial bans.

Michael Moore should be laughed at on every occasion he speaks. His little query on the line on "right to bear arms" is no different than his belief on all rights, essentially that individuals have none, only society has rights. Being a devout socialist, Moore has in the past, speaking to Bill O'Reilly, stated that a fair tax for a rich person was 70%, thus showing that individuals do not have ownership of their earnings, only society.

 

[manny78]

Being a devout socialist, Moore has in the past, speaking to Bill O'Reilly, stated that a fair tax for a rich person was 70%, thus showing that individuals do not have ownership of their earnings, only society.

Good way to stimulate the economy Also a great way to have all the brains getting the fuck out of the country....

 

[EnderJE]

You're absolutely right. A guy behind a desk doesn't "need" to lift weights and you're right I do it for recreation.

However, someone can't break into my house and steal my body when I'm not looking and kill someone with it. What I saw on the Shootist was a guy who locked up his guns with an inferior gun cabinet (christ, who though an IKEA cabinet was a good idea?!?!)and had them (and his VCR, TV, computer) all stolen. All I thought was great...there are two M16s on the street.

My original comment was only my opinion regarding gun control. I'm not a gun fan, so I don't see a need. You are. Thus, you do.

As I said above that comment, all strict controls would do is "potentially" decrease the availability of the criminal's guns. They couldn't steal it from lawful citizens like the poor guy who had his guns stolen. However, it wouldn't prevent criminals getting them from those who illegally transfer them into the country.

Besides...

...if they can ban ephedra...they can ban everything!

 

[EnderJE]

Regarding Moore's comment...

What do you think a fair taxation on those who earm more then 250k should be? Ok, 70% is a little too much. But, what do you think would be fair? Should they pay more then those who earn less then 30k? Should they make the most of all taxation loop holes / tax breaks so that they earn more then 250k, but pay less then those earning 30k?

Its a tough question...but 70% is a little too much. If he wants taxation like that, come to Canada. Or Sweden. Jesus...I thought Canada was bad.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Regarding Moore's comment...

What do you think a fair taxation on those who earm more then 250k should be? Ok, 70% is a little too much. But, what do you think would be fair? Should they pay more then those who earn less then 30k? Should they make the most of all taxation loop holes / tax breaks so that they earn more then 250k, but pay less then those earning 30k?

Its a tough question...but 70% is a little too much. If he wants taxation like that, come to Canada. Or Sweden. Jesus...I thought Canada was bad.

It is a simple question, ban the income tax. The US was founded and lasted for over 100 years without a constant income tax, it was implemented on a few occasions but quickly ruled unconstitutional, until 1913, when Wilson passed two unconstitutional acts.

Income taxation is a tool for socialistic class warfare, a necessary plank in Communism, and simply immoral. A man should not be forced to provide for the masses at the expense of his own interests. Why does a person he has never met have greater claim to his property than himself and his very family? Income taxation is a penalty for ambition, effort, and success. There can be no "fair" taxation directly on one's income, for it is not fair to take from a person without his consent, and grade it on his success. Sales taxes are "fair" for a man does not have to purchase the item and thus he has a choice as to what priorities he chooses.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Regarding Moore's comment...

What do you think a fair taxation on those who earm more then 250k should be? Ok, 70% is a little too much. But, what do you think would be fair? Should they pay more then those who earn less then 30k? Should they make the most of all taxation loop holes / tax breaks so that they earn more then 250k, but pay less then those earning 30k?

Its a tough question...but 70% is a little too much. If he wants taxation like that, come to Canada. Or Sweden. Jesus...I thought Canada was bad.

I earn well in excess of that number.

I agree with ABL that income tax is unconstitutional - in fact, it was found to be such when Lincoln wanted to pass one during the civil war.

The current US income tax is legal class warfare. In the US, despite what you hear about Bush's "tax cut for the rich" the bulk of deductions available to the middle and upper middle classes are not available for very high income earners, or if available, are reduced acording to a sliding scale.

Few people know about this because no one wants to hear a person with an annual income of $1M complain. Yet that is the group that gets ass-raped tax wise.

The actual hardcore buttfucking starts at about $175K, and they decrease the Vaseline until about $600K, where you're pretty much getting fucked raw without the lubricant known as deductions. For example, you can't deduct mortgage interest over $1.1M. But you can't borrow that much without a high income.

Anyway, income tax is just plain wrong but survives because of class warfare and the demonizing of effecive economic policy as catering to rich people who effectively finance the standard of living of everyone else.

The Skywalker would not object to a flat tax where all deductions are eliminated. However, sales tax is preferred.

 

[Testosterone boy]

A large percentage of rich people get rich by fucking everybody.

 

[IhateOsama]

Link?

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

A large percentage of rich people get rich by fucking everybody.

Good old class warfare.

 

[atlantabiolab]

A large percentage of rich people get rich by fucking everybody.

We can always count on T Boy to throw out unsubstantiated claims.

What percentage would that be? What reference did you derive this claim from, surely not anecdotal, right?

 

[Testosterone boy]

Good old class warfare.

A lot of people would do quite well if allowed to add a zero to all of their bills.

 

[Testosterone boy]

ABL..............you have been on ignore for months for being an obnoxious prick. My lack of response to your adverserial, insulting dialogue is simply that............a lack of response.

Now be a good little Bushbarian and run along. Surely you can find other things to do?

I charge my time out at 90/hour or more. I am not about to get serious about some chat board crap. I am here to relax, have fun, and educate the youngsters who need to learn from the experience of others. I draw from my own.

 

[EnderJE]

RE: Supernav

So are you suggesting arming everyone and have the slightest crime turn into a major shootout? I would think that under those circumstances that more people would get injuired / die due to accidents / poor aim rather then just the cops and robbers armed. How much safer is that?

RE: Rich people are fucking the poor / 0 income tax

Let's say that a person can't complete for whatever reason (lazy, disability, victim mentality, lack of funding, etc.), then who will take care of that person? Should we just discard them? The perception is that the income tax goes towards funding those services that society feels should be equal among all. I say perception because I'm not foolhearty enough to believe it actually does.

 

[atlantabiolab]

ABL..............you have been on ignore for months for being an obnoxious prick. My lack of response to your adverserial, insulting dialogue is simply that............a lack of response.

Now be a good little Bushbarian and run along. Surely you can find other things to do?

Your ignorance continues unabated. Because I don't share your idiotic, Marxist view, I might add, that the rich are the exploiters of the poor, does not mean that I support Bush or the present administration. I would surmise that these individuals were rich prior to Bush and shall remain that way long after he is gone.

I know it is hard for you to think independantly, but there is no direct correlation with a free market and Bush, they are independant.

I charge my time out at 90/hour or more. I am not about to get serious about some chat board crap. I am here to relax, have fun, and educate the youngsters who need to learn from the experience of others. I draw from my own.

And how do you educate others with no logical or substantiated proof? OH, that's right, you play on emotions and class envy.

 

[atlantabiolab]

RE: Supernav

So are you suggesting arming everyone and have the slightest crime turn into a major shootout?

Ummm...No. A right is the ability to act without coercion or force against your actions. People are free to choose if they want to have a gun or not, it is simply not their right to restrict others from owning arms.

I would think that under those circumstances that more people would get injuired / die due to accidents / poor aim rather then just the cops and robbers armed. How much safer is that?

You would be wrong. Reality has disproven this scenario time and time again. Cities that allow Concealed Weapons have lower rates of crime than those without and especially those with very restrictive gun laws.

The error in your logic is that a gun controls the individual, thus demanding that its possession equates to use against others. Individuals determine every use of a gun, just as they do a car, alcohol, money, etc. The person is the moral agent and thus there is no evidence to show that lawful gun ownership increases criminal activity, and usually shows the opposite.

RE: Rich people are fucking the poor / 0 income tax

Let's say that a person can't complete for whatever reason (lazy, disability, victim mentality, lack of funding, etc.), then who will take care of that person? Should we just discard them? The perception is that the income tax goes towards funding those services that society feels should be equal among all. I say perception because I'm not foolhearty enough to believe it actually does.

Very simple. When you realize that your two choices are find a job or work, what is your logical reaction? You are using the current context of society, where there is a third choice: become a dependant on social handouts. Remove this choice and the only logical choice is "find a job".

For the cases of disabilities or illnesses, society has organizations better capable of handling these problems, such as charities and religious organizations. They are personally devoted to the idea of helping the unfortunate, unlike the social worker who is simply a state worker collecting an income. Also, they can better decide who truly deserves aid and who is simply attempting to live off of the productivity of others.

Social services have also destroyed the concept of family, being the support group during times of hardship.

Lastly, your question of "who will take care of that person?" begs another question: "what is preventing you from assisting this person you so selflessly care about?"

 

[Chaucer]

We can always count on T Boy to throw out unsubstantiated claims.

What percentage would that be? What reference did you derive this claim from, surely not anecdotal, right?

I don't think that his claims are "unsubstantiated." Middle class America is getting fucked. Last time I checked, over 70 percent of those polled said they wanted our immigration policy drastically reduced. Who does this immigration policy benefit? Not me, I don't own a meat packing plant or construction company. Meanwhile, I have to pay for the horde's medical bills, education, and other various forms of welfare…Total bullshit. Middle class America has been getting screwed ever since transnational corporations and powerful lobbies hijacked D.C. Say good bye to the aspect of popular sovereignty in Democracy (not that I believe in it anyways).

 

[Chaucer]

Anyways...The gun grabbing freaks never address the gun violence problem that really plagues America. Last time I checked, all males in Switzerland own firearms. Every neighbor of mine in rural VA owns a gun. Why don't our streets bear a resemblance to Compton or Detroit?

 

[Silent Method]

At the same time, I can't see any reason why anyone needs to own a tech 9 or a M16 (saw it on The Shootist).

What is the nature of our right to bare arms? It is NOT the right to pursue sport nor game animals. The second amendment guarantees the right to keep and bare weapons. The men who wrote and/or ratified the amendment made it clear that the firearm was the principal weapon of an armed citizen. Furthermore, they made it very clear that the very preservation of freedom is contingent on this right.

The tec-9 is a piece of shit, but let's look at the M16. This is what our soldiers are issued - the tool deemed adequate by the powers that be for them that they may wage battle, defend their lives and our freedom. In regard to the current state of technology, the M16 is the personal weapon deemed most reasonable for them to defend defend their lives and our freedom.

I ask you, why would the citizen, upon which freedom as a whole rests, be barred a most basic tool by which a modern man would reasonably be expected to wage battle?

 

[Silent Method]

"Firearms injuries were the second leading cause of injury deaths, killing 28,663 people in 2000, the most recent year for which data was available. About 58 percent of the deaths were suicides. Gun accidents claimed about 775 lives that year."

This is a fun little atatement pulled from the article Nihilist posted.

Firearms were the CAUSE of the injury deaths? SUICIDE DEATHS are counted in the raw injury death tolls? This is the way people with an agenda distort info folks.

 

[Silent Method]

Police are also anti gun. This is because they would be exempt from this ban and could still keep their carry permits long after they have retired. Another group that would be least affected by a ban. Police encounter 99% of the time “illegal handguns” that would not be impacted under any ban.

Some of them are, but certainly not all. No doubt that many who pursure police work do so because they aspire to control others. In such cases, they are no friend of freedom nor justice.

However, many are very concerned with freedom and justice. I'd wager that the average American policeman supports the right of citizens to bare arms. There are certainly some very large, organized efforts among some police organizations to protect the right.

 

[atlantabiolab]

I don't think that his claims are "unsubstantiated." Middle class America is getting fucked. Last time I checked, over 70 percent of those polled said they wanted our immigration policy drastically reduced. Who does this immigration policy benefit? Not me, I don't own a meat packing plant or construction company. Meanwhile, I have to pay for the horde's medical bills, education, and other various forms of welfare…Total bullshit. Middle class America has been getting screwed ever since transnational corporations and powerful lobbies hijacked D.C. Say good bye to the aspect of popular sovereignty in Democracy (not that I believe in it anyways).

Sorry, but middle America has been fucking itself, no help from business. In fact, middle America has been putting a fucking on private business for years.

Middle Americans vote for social programs, favoring the idea that others should pay for their needs, and when illegals jump in line, they get pissed. Middle Americans have voted in favor of regulating and imposing demands on businesses, which increases the costs of businesses and then bitch when prices elevate.

Middle America has fallen for the socialistic BS that it can have its cake and eat it too.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Sorry, but middle America has been fucking itself, no help from business. In fact, middle America has been putting a fucking on private business for years.

Middle Americans vote for social programs, favoring the idea that others should pay for their needs, and when illegals jump in line, they get pissed. Middle Americans have voted in favor of regulating and imposing demands on businesses, which increases the costs of businesses and then bitch when prices elevate.

Middle America has fallen for the socialistic BS that it can have its cake and eat it too.

Bingo!

And thanks for saying that.

 

[EnderJE]

You would be wrong. Reality has disproven this scenario time and time again. Cities that allow Concealed Weapons have lower rates of crime than those without and especially those with very restrictive gun laws.

The error in your logic is that a gun controls the individual, thus demanding that its possession equates to use against others. Individuals determine every use of a gun, just as they do a car, alcohol, money, etc. The person is the moral agent and thus there is no evidence to show that lawful gun ownership increases criminal activity, and usually shows the opposite.

Do you know where I can see the statistics regarding the above? I'm not challenging your point, I just want to know the numbers.

Very simple. When you realize that your two choices are find a job or work, what is your logical reaction? You are using the current context of society, where there is a third choice: become a dependant on social handouts. Remove this choice and the only logical choice is "find a job".

I think that most people would willingly choose work as I can't see why anyone would want to become and stay a beggar. My concern is not with those who would choose the perma-beggar / social dependant path. I have no issue with those who use the system as a temporary measure. I have large issues with those who decide to stay on it.

However, for those who haven't found a job yet (and were foolish enough not to build up their savings), I would think that some help would be needed until they found their job.

 

[Tiervexx]

It is a simple question, ban the income tax. The US was founded and lasted for over 100 years without a constant income tax, it was implemented on a few occasions but quickly ruled unconstitutional, until 1913, when Wilson passed two unconstitutional acts.

Income taxation is a tool for socialistic class warfare, a necessary plank in Communism, and simply immoral. A man should not be forced to provide for the masses at the expense of his own interests. Why does a person he has never met have greater claim to his property than himself and his very family? Income taxation is a penalty for ambition, effort, and success. There can be no "fair" taxation directly on one's income, for it is not fair to take from a person without his consent, and grade it on his success. Sales taxes are "fair" for a man does not have to purchase the item and thus he has a choice as to what priorities he chooses.

I completely agree with you on this, but you have a horrible tendency to mistake your opinions for logical proof.

Many details can be proven, like the fact that crime goes up in places that don't allow concealed weapons.

I agree with you that communism and all forms of it is a terrible thing but that is only our opinions. Who are you to declare it immoral? Who made you god?

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Do you know where I can see the statistics regarding the above? I'm not challenging your point, I just want to know the numbers.

If you are intersted in looking, check out the crime in the state of Texas when CCW permits were granted more frequently. Also, look into the crime disasters in Australia and Britain as they enforced strict gun control.

I think that most people would willingly choose work as I can't see why anyone would want to become and stay a beggar. My concern is not with those who would choose the perma-beggar / social dependant path. I have no issue with those who use the system as a temporary measure. I have large issues with those who decide to stay on it.

However, for those who haven't found a job yet (and were foolish enough not to build up their savings), I would think that some help would be needed until they found their job.

The absence of a safety net would modify people's behavior toward responsibility for their fnancial affairs (and other things).

 

[atlantabiolab]

I agree with you that communism and all forms of it is a terrible thing but that is only our opinions. Who are you to declare it immoral? Who made you god?

So you agree with this idea, but if someone else presents you with a rebuttal, you would not be able to maintain your position?? Do you have the ability to reason why liberty is better than slavery? As an absolute? Your posts always give the impression that you don't have the capacity to reason why murder is immoral, theft is immoral, rape is immoral. You simply present the idea that you only personally "feel" it to be wrong, but who are you to make this claim.

As for your God question, Who was Newton to discover gravity? Who was Einstein to postulate the Theory of Relativity? Who was Adam Smith to postulate theories of economics? Did any of these men create the "truths" that they presented, or merely use their intelligence to discern the laws of nature?

Reality/Nature is, and men must understand it to utilize it. I did not contrive any of the ideas that I present, many men have unraveled these problems long before me. I accept them because they appropriately describe reality and have not been refuted.

Communism/socialism is by its very nature immoral. It restricts the abilities and liberty of men. It enslaves the individual to the masses. It denies man's very nature to acheive.

 

[Tiervexx]

The effects of gravity and other natural laws can be seen and measured. I would love to see you post some scientific proof that your opinions on morality are the only right ones.

You are the worst kind of asshole, one that thinks he is god and does not even know it.

 

[atlantabiolab]

The effects of gravity and other natural laws can be seen and measured. I would love to see you post some scientific proof that your opinions on morality are the only right ones.

You are the worst kind of asshole, one that thinks he is god and does not even know it.

I shall take this as a compliment from one who desires not to know anything and live as a beast of the field.

Adler on Science and Philosophy
Ultimately there can be no disagreement between history, science, philosophy, and theology.

Where there is disagreement, there is either ignorance or error.

Each of these four major branches of seeking knowledge of reality have different OBJECTS of study, and different METHODS of inquiry. Even within the individual sciences for example; astronomy can answer questions and refute answers about the celestial bodies and their movements, but it cannot answer questions or refute answers about anthropology and vice versa.

Only when one branch either becomes imperialistic or prejudicially ignores another branches findings do these problems arise.

For example (in brief):

HISTORY - Its OBJECT is the past. Its METHOD is research utilizing testimony, documents, and remains.

SCIENCE - Its OBJECT is phenomena and their appearances. Its METHOD is observation, investigation and/or experimentation--reason serves the senses. It describes the facts.

PHILOSOPHY - Its OBJECT is reality and causes. Its METHOD is reflective--senses serve reason. It provides an understanding of the facts.

RELIGION - Its OBJECT is ultimate mysteries. Its METHOD is receptive--reason serves revelation. It accepts and believes.

The knowledge we can derive from science and history, are limited to first-order knowledge by their investigative mode of inquiry. They are incapable of enlarging our understanding by the second-order work, or philosophical analysis, with respect to ideas and all branches of knowledge. Without the contributions made by philosophy, we would be left with voids that science and history cannot fill.

Even in the one sphere in which the contributions of science and philosophy are comparable--our knowledge of reality- philosophy, because it is noninvestigative, can answer questions that are beyond the reach of investigative science--questions that are more profound and penetrating than any questions answerable by science. By virtue of its being investigative, science is limited to the experienceable world of physical nature. Philosophical thought can extend its inquiries into transempirical reality. It is philosophy, not science, that takes the overall view.

Furthermore, when there is an apparent conflict between science and philosophy, it is to philosophy that we must turn for the resolution. Science cannot provide it. When scientists such as Einstein, Bohr, and Heisenberg become involved with mixed questions, they must philosophize. They cannot discuss these questions merely as scientists; the principles for the statement and solution of such problems come from philosophy, not from science.

For all these reasons, I think we are compelled to regard the contributions of philosophy as having greater value for us than the contributions of science. I say this even though we must all gratefully acknowledge the benefits that science and its technological applications confer upon us. The power that science gives us over our environment, health, and lives can, as we all know, be either misused and misdirected, or used with good purpose and results. Without the prescriptive knowledge given us by ethical and political philosophy, we have no guidance in the use of that power, directing it to the ends of a good life and a good society. The more power science and technology confer upon us, the more dangerous and malevolent that power may become unless its use is checked and guided by moral obligations stemming from our philosophical knowledge of how we ought to conduct our lives and our society.


Adler on Knowledge and Opinion

Question: Is there such a thing as knowledge, or is everything a matter of opinion? Our picture of the world and our way of life has changed so much in the last fifty years that I wonder whether we can have certain knowledge about anything. Isn't most of our so-called knowledge really opinion?

Dr. Adler: Most of us know what an opinion is. We recognize that our opinions are beliefs that others need not share. We are used to having those who disagree with us say, "Well, that is only your opinion" (or "your opinion"). Even when we advance an opinion on very good grounds, we usually feel some doubt about it. "I have good reason to believe so," we say, "but I wouldn't swear to it."

Here, then, are three characteristics of opinions: (1) they express probabilities rather than certainties; (2) they are subject to doubt; and (3) reasonable men can differ about which of two conflicting opinions is sounder.

There is a perennial skepticism which holds that everything is a matter of opinion. The extreme skeptic reduces even such things as mathematics and science to opinion. He points out, for example, that a system of geometry rests on arbitrary assumptions. Other assumptions can be made and other systems of geometry developed. Experimental science at it's best, the skeptic maintains, consists of highly probable generalizations, not indubitable certainties.

In contrast with such skepticism is the view of the ancient Greek philosophers. Plato and Aristotle think that there are some matters about which men can have genuine knowledge. In the very nature of things, some things are necessary and cannot be otherwise. For example, by the very nature of wholes and parts, it is necessary that the whole should always be greater than any of its parts. This is something we know for certain. On the other hand, there is nothing in the natures of gentlemen and blondes that makes it necessary for gentlemen always to prefer blondes, and so this is only a matter of opinion.

The difference between knowledge and opinion can also be expressed in psychological terms. When we are asked, "Do gentlemen prefer blondes?" or "Will the Republicans win the 2000 election?", we must make up our own mind. Nothing about the matter in question compels us to answer Yes or No. But when we are asked whether the whole is greater than any of its parts, we have no choice about the answer. If we put our mind to thinking about the relation of whole and part, we can think about the relation in only one way. The object we are thinking about makes up our mind for us.

This gives us a very clear criterion for telling whether what we assert is knowledge or opinion. It is knowledge when the object that we are thinking about compels us to think of it in a certain way. What we think then is not our personal opinion. But when the object of our thought leaves us free to make up our mind about it, one way or the other, then what we think is only an opinion -- our personal opinion, voluntarily formed. Here other rational persons can differ with us.

On this understanding of the difference between knowledge and opinion, we must admit that most of our assertions are opinion. But we should also realize that opinions differ in their soundness. Some are based on considerable evidence or reasons which, while not conclusive, make them highly probable. Others are ill-founded, and others have no foundation at all but are simply willful prejudices on our part.

This leaves open the question whether history, mathematics, experimental science, and speculative philosophy should be classified as knowledge or opinion. As we have seen, the extreme skeptic would say that they are all opinion, though he might recognize that they have much more weight than mere personal opinions or private prejudices. The opposite view, which I would defend, is that we can have knowledge in the fields of mathematics and philosophy, and highly probable opinion in the fields of experimental science and history.


Adler on Truth

Question: I find it hard to define what truth is. Some of my friends say that truth is what most people think is so. But that does not make sense to me, because sometimes the majority is wrong. Even what everyone thinks is so may not be the truth. There must be some better definition of truth. What is it?

Dr. Adler: You are quite right to feel dissatisfied. Your friends did not arrive at a definition of truth, but at one of the signs of truth. In certain cases the fact that the majority holds something to be true is an indication that it is probably true. But this is only one of the signs of truth, and by no means the best one. And it does not answer your question or Pilate's --"What is truth?"

It may help you to understand the nature of truth to consider what is involved in telling a lie. If a man tells a woman "I love you" when he does not, he is telling a lie. When a child who has raided the cookie jar tells his mother "I didn't", he is lying. Lying consists in saying the opposite of what you know, think, or feel. It is distinct from honest error, such as that of the umpire who calls a man "out" when he is "safe", or vice versa.

Josiah Royce, a great American philosopher at the beginning of this century, defined a liar as a man who willfully misplaces his ontological predicates; that is, a man who says "is" when he means "is not", or "is not" when he means "is". Royce's definition of a liar leads us quickly to the most famous of all philosophical definitions of truth. It was given by Plato and Aristotle almost twenty-five centuries ago; it has been repeated in various ways ever since, and seldom been improved upon.

Plato and Aristotle say that the opinions we hold are true when they assert that that which is, is, or that that which is not, is not; and that our opinions are false when they assert that that which is, is not, or that that which is not, is.

When the "is" in a statement we make agrees with the way things are, then our statement is true, and its truth consists in its corresponding to the existent facts of nature and reality. When we think that something exists or has happened which does not exist or did not happen, then we are mistaken and what we think is false.

So, as you see, truth is very easy to define, and the definition is not very hard to understand. Perhaps impatient Pilate would have waited for the answer if he had known that it could be given so briefly. But maybe he was thinking of another question, "How can we tell whether a statement is true or false?" This, by the way, is the question you and your friends ended up by answering.

To this question there are three main types of answer. The first insists that some statements are self-evidently true, such as, "The whole is greater than the part." Such statements reveal their truth to us directly by the fact that we find it impossible to think the opposite of them. When we understand what a whole is and what a part is, we cannot think that a part is greater than the whole to which it belongs. That is how we know immediately the truth of the statement that the whole is greater than any of its parts.

Another type of answer says that the truth of statements can be tested by our experience or observations. If a man says that it did not rain in Chicago a single day last month, we can check the truth of his statement by looking up the official weather records. Or we can stick a foot into a swimming pool to see if the water is as warm as a friend says it is. Similarly, a scientific generalization is considered true only as long as no contrary facts are observed.

The third type of answer has to do with statements that are neither self-evidently true nor capable of being checked by direct appeal to observed facts. It may be a question of a person's character, what type of product is most desirable for certain purposes, or whether the favorite will win the next race. Here it is permissible to count noses and to find the consensus of a group of people or of the experts. That an opinion is held by a majority can be taken as a sign that it has some probability of being true.

This third answer was the one your friend arrived at. But the fact that it expressed the consensus of the group does not make it the right answer to the question, "What is truth?" Nor does it give the full answer to the question, "How can we tell whether a statement is true?"

Defining truth is easy; knowing whether a particular statement is true is much harder; and pursuing the truth is most difficult of all.

 

[Longhorn85]

Is it a coincidence that the areas of the country with the most strict gun-control laws (DC, Philly, NYC, CA) have the highest crime rates and areas with less restrictive laws (Texas, Utah, Arizona) have lower crime rates?

 

[Nihilist]

Is it a coincidence that the areas of the country with the most strict gun-control laws (DC, Philly, NYC, CA) have the highest crime rates and areas with less restrictive laws (Texas, Utah, Arizona) have lower crime rates?

apparently so.