Re: government milk: guns (vastly off-topic)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/16/04 11:07:47 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> If a trend can only be observed " by and large " , then at best it's not the

> only factor at work. Canada has similar gun ownership but much less

> violence. The UK has far lower gun ownership and far less

> violence. Clearly guns are not the only factor in violence, but there's no

> reason to conclude they're automatically protective either.

>

Without doubt there are other variables. But the existence of a second or

third variable doesn't negate the existence of a first. Dedy said Canada had

higher gun ownership and less crime. Iirc the UK has comparable violence when

non-gun crimes are taken into account, but in any case within the UK crime

increased astronomically with the ban on guns. In the US, where concealed

weapons

have been legalized in a given area, the violence rate drops, and in Georgia

in 1982 in Kennesaw they passed a law requiring every household owner to own

at least one gun (not that I agree with the law), and the crime rate dropped

89% and 10% in Georgia as a whole.

What's important isn't whether or not any other factors exist, but whether,

when those factors are controlled, there is a true inverse correlation with gun

ownership and crime. Since there are too many factor's in a culture to

possibly keep track of, incidences where the law is changed one way or another

in

an isolated region is the best way to control for the other factors.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/16/04 5:20:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> If guns can lead to greater or lesser violence, then they're not

> determinative. I agree that Canada argues against kneejerk gun control,

> and in fact I don't like most gun control proposals at all, but inner

> cities argue against a universally protective effect of gun ownership.

I don't see how; inner cities have much lower rates of legal gun ownership,

than, say, rural areas, according to any statistics I've read. How many gang

members planning a driveby go to the store, through a backround check, etc, to

acquire their guns?

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Without doubt there are other variables. But the existence of a second or

>third variable doesn't negate the existence of a first.

If guns can lead to greater or lesser violence, then they're not

determinative. I agree that Canada argues against kneejerk gun control,

and in fact I don't like most gun control proposals at all, but inner

cities argue against a universally protective effect of gun ownership.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

You just moved the goalpost from " gun ownership " to " legal gun

ownership " . If you're not going to debate in good faith, I'm not going to

debate with you.

> > If guns can lead to greater or lesser violence, then they're not

> > determinative. I agree that Canada argues against kneejerk gun control,

> > and in fact I don't like most gun control proposals at all, but inner

> > cities argue against a universally protective effect of gun ownership.

>

>I don't see how; inner cities have much lower rates of legal gun ownership,

>than, say, rural areas, according to any statistics I've read. How many gang

>members planning a driveby go to the store, through a backround check,

>etc, to

>acquire their guns?

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/16/04 7:12:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> You just moved the goalpost from " gun ownership " to " legal gun

> ownership " . If you're not going to debate in good faith, I'm not going to

> debate with you.

,

I'm debating entirely in good faith.

1) I didn't " just " " move " the goalpost there. In fact, in the very beginning

of our debate, now three posts ago, I wrote:

" High levels of per capital legal gun ownership?

By and large the trend is the opposite from what I've read. "

in the message dated 1/16.

2) It seemed implicit to me that legal gun ownership was the issue, since it

is the entire foundation of the anti-gun control argument. The purported

mechanism by which gun control increases crime is by criminal's *possessing*

guns

while law-abiding citizens do not. Therefore, quite clearly, the relevant

data variable in this argument is rate of legal ownership.

Finally, I always, without exception, debate in good faith. An possible

exception to this is not deliberate on my part. While I am often persistent,

and

perhaps in your view stubborn, I never deliberately change my argument in

order to win. I recognize that not only are you far too intelligent for me to

get

away with it, but that all of my messages are archived and you can simply

take out the previous messages to call me on my tricks. As I hope you see, I

retained the same position this time from the getgo, as evidenced by my #1

above.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/17/04 2:33:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> In that case you just moved the goalpost earlier and I missed it then. I

> said " higher levels of gun ownership " , NOT " higher levels of legal gun

> ownership " . If you wanted to suggest a difference between legal and

> illegal gun ownership, you should have explicitly said so instead of

> disputing something I didn't say.

Well, in that case, I think you're defending an absolutely meaningless

truism, and we don't have a debate, because we agree.

However, I'd like to *explicitly* move the goalpost now to something that

actually has some meaning-- legal gun ownership. As Lott pointed out in the

article Suze posted, inner cities actually have far lower rates of legal gun

ownership when such ownership is legal, because officials are far less likely to

grant permits. Paradoxically, this is probably out of fear because of the high

rates of gun violence. However, when indiscriminatory legalizations are

instituted, and the actual rates of legal gun ownership increase, inner cities

experience a dramatic decline in gun violence, and, in fact, inner cities

benefit

the most out of all areas from such policies.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>I'm debating entirely in good faith.

OK, I believe you, but the problem is that if you move the goalposts

around, there's no functional difference regardless of your actual

intent. It's just not kosher in a debate.

>1) I didn't " just " " move " the goalpost there. In fact, in the very beginning

>of our debate, now three posts ago, I wrote:

>

> " High levels of per capital legal gun ownership?

>By and large the trend is the opposite from what I've read. "

In that case you just moved the goalpost earlier and I missed it then. I

said " higher levels of gun ownership " , NOT " higher levels of legal gun

ownership " . If you wanted to suggest a difference between legal and

illegal gun ownership, you should have explicitly said so instead of

disputing something I didn't say.

>I never deliberately change my argument in

>order to win.

OK, like I said, I believe you. I think you're a good guy, I like you,

I've " known " you on the list for a fair bit, etc. But goalpost moving is

something you do somewhat regularly, so I'd say it's a careless mistake you

ought to be a lot more careful of.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/17/04 9:11:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Now wait a second ... maybe I'm missing something, but I thought

> most Libertarians were against gun registration? The only way you

> can have a " legal " gun is to register it.

I'm fully, 100% against any form of gun registration, and am fully, 100% in

favor of the right for citizens to carry concealed fire arms and to own

so-called " assault rifles " without any sort of registration or background

checks.

It isn't true that you need to register guns... that's true of some guns, and

true in some places. They are pushing for registration so they can

confiscate guns-- they say it ain't so, but it's happened before with certain

guns.

You need a *permit* to get a gun, but you don't need the *gun* registered, is my

understanding.

When I say legal, I'm referring to unobstructed gun ownership, and, even more

imortantly, the right to carry the weapon concealed. In some places, gun

ownership is severely restricted. In those places, the crime rate is

proportionately higher. In most places, most people can't carry concealed

weapons. When

such carrying is legalized, the crime rate drops proportionally.

> Most places I've lived have had lots of guns -- first the inner city

> (illegal guns)

> and now the country (legal guns). One thing for the legalization process

> is that it is something like the driver's license process ... it encourages

> training and practice, and the folks who get legal guns are not the kinds of

> folks who are likely to fear a background check, and they tend to

> keep them away from their kids and/or teach their kids how to handle

> them.

Background checks and cooling periods kill. There's really no reason for

them whatsoever, and they just prevent people who need guns to defend themselves

in immediate circumstances from getting one.

>

> In Switzerland I was told every male has a rifle, and also must

> account for every bullet fired, and gets lots of training on that rifle.

> But burglaries are rare ... no one wants to break into a house

> with an armed male present.

Exactly.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/17/04 11:10:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> There are many occasions in which someone wants to run out to kill someone

> -- a spouse caught cheating, for example. You could argue that the net

> drawbacks of a waiting period outweigh the benefits (it would take a lot of

> data to really establish anything either way) but you can't very well

> pretend that there's absolutely no conceivable justification for them. The

> same goes for background checks. Do you really want armed robbers legally

> buying assault weapons?

I agree there is a theoretical justification. What I should have said is the

harms outweight the benefits. Say, an abusive spouse or partner is

threatening a woman and she gets a restraining order, tries to get a gun to

protect

herself, needs to wait for a waiting period, and dies the next day.

www.armedandsecure.org discusses one such anecdote, and supplies some stats. It

appears

they'd be better without them. It discusses such scenarios in the LA riots

too, under " debate center " .

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/18/04 12:51:34 AM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> I did not see any evidence in that area that gun ownership

> prevented violence, esp. since most of these folks were KIDS.

> Their ownership of guns was, at the time, pretty unobstructed.

> I suspect that, given enough time, the culture they were part

> of would morph into something more sustainable or they would

> all die off.

According to Lott, the inner cities do benefit from legalized concealed

weapons, and he has the data to prove it. Right now I'm assuming his data is

correct, having not read the book, but he determined his points from his

research

of the stats.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>However, I'd like to *explicitly* move the goalpost now to something that

>actually has some meaning-- legal gun ownership. As Lott pointed out in the

>article Suze posted, inner cities actually have far lower rates of legal gun

>ownership when such ownership is legal, because officials are far less likely

to

>grant permits. Paradoxically, this is probably out of fear because of the high

>rates of gun violence. However, when indiscriminatory legalizations are

>instituted, and the actual rates of legal gun ownership increase, inner cities

>experience a dramatic decline in gun violence, and, in fact, inner cities

benefit

>the most out of all areas from such policies.

>

>Chris

Now wait a second ... maybe I'm missing something, but I thought

most Libertarians were against gun registration? The only way you

can have a " legal " gun is to register it.

Most places I've lived have had lots of guns -- first the inner city (illegal

guns)

and now the country (legal guns). One thing for the legalization process

is that it is something like the driver's license process ... it encourages

training and practice, and the folks who get legal guns are not the kinds of

folks who are likely to fear a background check, and they tend to

keep them away from their kids and/or teach their kids how to handle

them.

In Switzerland I was told every male has a rifle, and also must

account for every bullet fired, and gets lots of training on that rifle.

But burglaries are rare ... no one wants to break into a house

with an armed male present.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Background checks and cooling periods kill. There's really no reason for

>them whatsoever,

There are many occasions in which someone wants to run out to kill someone

-- a spouse caught cheating, for example. You could argue that the net

drawbacks of a waiting period outweigh the benefits (it would take a lot of

data to really establish anything either way) but you can't very well

pretend that there's absolutely no conceivable justification for them. The

same goes for background checks. Do you really want armed robbers legally

buying assault weapons?

-

[Guest guest]

>When I say legal, I'm referring to unobstructed gun ownership, and, even more

>imortantly, the right to carry the weapon concealed. In some places, gun

>ownership is severely restricted. In those places, the crime rate is

>proportionately higher. In most places, most people can't carry concealed

weapons. When

>such carrying is legalized, the crime rate drops proportionally.

If " concealment " is the issue, then it surely doesn't apply

to the inner city, where carrying a concealed weapon is more

or less the norm. If gun ownership is restricted, I sure couldn't

tell. The police were not real keen on arresting a lot of these

folks, because they often carried higher powered guns

than the cops did. However, most of the " shootouts " were

between gang members. Except for drivebys, where you

had to shoot someone at random to prove yourself.

I did not see any evidence in that area that gun ownership

prevented violence, esp. since most of these folks were KIDS.

Their ownership of guns was, at the time, pretty unobstructed.

I suspect that, given enough time, the culture they were part

of would morph into something more sustainable or they would

all die off.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>I did not see any evidence in that area that gun ownership

>prevented violence, esp. since most of these folks were KIDS.

>Their ownership of guns was, at the time, pretty unobstructed.

One of the tricks to the studies which purport to show that gun ownership

and concealed carry permits decrease violence is, as I understand it, that

they discount illegal gun ownership and illegal concealed carries.

The fact that some populations have lots of guns and lots of gun violence

and others have lots of guns and very little gun violence indicates that

guns aren't the determining factor, people and/or culture are. _Blank

Slate_ makes an excellent argument about honor culture, and " Bowling For

Columbine " , while not a perfect film, did make a very interesting

suggestion about the contrast between our sensationalist fear-mongering

media in the States (and our high levels of gun ownership AND gun violence)

and Canada's staid, laid back media (and high levels of gun ownership but

low levels of gun violence). The media angle is worth further study.

-

[Guest guest]

>According to Lott, the inner cities do benefit from legalized concealed

>weapons, and he has the data to prove it. Right now I'm assuming his data is

>correct, having not read the book, but he determined his points from his

research

>of the stats.

>

>Chris

Granted you haven't read the book, I'd guess the folks who get " legalized "

guns are not the drug dealing punks? So if old ladies and normal folk

get more concealed weapons, then the punks will be less likely to

abuse them? That does make sense.

Though I'm not sure it requires a GUN to do it. Any weapon

might do. I do think most women are 'easy targets' for a predator.

I dislike guns because it requires a life/death decision, and most

of the " enemies " I've encountered, like racoons and mean dogs

and self-exposers, aren't ones I want to kill.

My Mom, interestingly, got held up at gunpoint. She got behind the

kid and started yelling and he ran. She is not an easy target.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

:

>The fact that some populations have lots of guns and lots of gun violence

>and others have lots of guns and very little gun violence indicates that

>guns aren't the determining factor, people and/or culture are. _Blank

>Slate_ makes an excellent argument about honor culture, and " Bowling For

>Columbine " , while not a perfect film, did make a very interesting

>suggestion about the contrast between our sensationalist fear-mongering

>media in the States (and our high levels of gun ownership AND gun violence)

>and Canada's staid, laid back media (and high levels of gun ownership but

>low levels of gun violence). The media angle is worth further study.

:

I agree. I did see Bowling for Columbine, and enjoyed it

very much!

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/18/04 1:42:22 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> One of the tricks to the studies which purport to show that gun ownership

> and concealed carry permits decrease violence is, as I understand it, that

> they discount illegal gun ownership and illegal concealed carries.

,

This isn't a trick. If you don't offer concealed carry permits, then

criminals will carry concealed weapons. The entire point is that non-criminals

need

to be able to defend themselves, and prevent criminals from attacking them,

and give an incentive to avoid attacking them.

Your method of making no distinction between the two is pure trickery, not

the reverse.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/18/04 1:56:38 AM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Though I'm not sure it requires a GUN to do it. Any weapon

> might do. I do think most women are 'easy targets' for a predator.

> I dislike guns because it requires a life/death decision, and most

> of the " enemies " I've encountered, like racoons and mean dogs

> and self-exposers, aren't ones I want to kill.

Statistics show you're wrong. Women who defend themselves with a gun are 2.5

times LESS likely to be hurt than women who engage in passive complicity,

whereas women who engage in active resistance including guns and all other forms

are MORE likely to be hurt than women who are complicit. That means that

using fists, knives, pepper spray, etc, is dangerous, while guns are safe.

It makes sense-- any attempt to hurt the person but not threaten their life

is just going to elicit a violent response.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/18/04 10:39:44 AM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> Sounds like Texas. Unsure of their laws, house crime doesn't happen.

> Doesn't

> stop violent behavior like dragging a black man behind a truck until he's

> dead.

It sure would if the black man had a gun.

> Yes, its a constitutional right within reasoning and purpose. It's a huge

> responsibilty! Am someone who was brought up that the only purpose of a gun

> is as a tool to help feed the family. Thats from a father who was in WWII.

> Pistols are for protecting yourself from a charging bear maybe out hunting.

> All the rest self protection and war are societal ills, man made aggression.

You can feed your family but protecting your family is a societal ill? Why

even feed your family if you'll let them be murdered by an intruder?

>

> >Background checks and cooling periods kill. There's really no reason for

> >them whatsoever, and they just prevent people who need guns to defend

> themselves

> >in immediate circumstances from getting one.

>

> Who in this country needs that? There's always the option to remove oneless

> from such uncomfortable situations. Change your job or move if you don't

> like going to the city or living where you feel like you could be assaulted.

> Notify the police. People do it everyday.

The police often can not offer the protection you need, and in fact court

cases have ruled that the police can not be held liable for failing to protect

an

individual, they only must protect " society " at large. See " debate center "

at www.armedandsecure.org for a citation. Sometimes its an immediate matter of

life and death. Sometimes there are thousands of people rioting and trying

to burn your building down, and your assault rifle is your one defense against

the destruction of everything you spent your life working for.

That's self preservation not self

> defense. We were sold this house in a small town of 1000 people, not being

> told the what looks like a school, actually prison nearby was only for male

> juvenile sex offenders, and we have daughters. Have tried to move, feel

> ripped off, does alter and abuse our quality of life everyday but we live

> with it offensively. Don't use the offense as a reason for defense.

Using a gun to protect yourself against someone else attempting to initiate

violence is defense, not offense.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/18/04 1:40:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Which argument? Not Chris's. He objects to all restrictions on gun

> ownership, including background checks.

That's the point! Restrictions on gun ownership have no bearing on

restrictions of *criminal* gun ownership who obtain guns on the black market

largely.

Any restrictions on gun ownership decrease the proportion of law-abiding

citizens who own guns to that of criminals who own guns. And my argument is

precisely that the ratio of non-criminals who own guns to criminals who own guns

is

what's important.

>

> Now, for those people arguing that it's an important distinction, you have

> to ask why they refuse to allow for a waiting period long enough to

> actually conduct a background check. They insist on an instant check,

> which cannot reliably determine which side of that distinction a

> prospective customer falls on. IMO, while there are no doubt plenty of

> honest advocates of the instant check, the idea itself was devised as a

> political trojan horse -- a means of appealing to more of the electorate

> without actually accomplishing a proper check.

Some folks are against all background checks. The reasoning is pretty well

supported. See " debate center " at www.armedandsecure.org.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/18/04 1:43:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Your argument is that there should be no gun control. Therefore, to argue

> that no gun control would result in a depression of crime based on legal

> gun ownership stats is questionable at best.

Gun control criminalizes gun ownership and decreases the availability of guns

to law-abiding citizens and has a much smaller effect on the availability of

guns to criminals with the net effect to drastically reduce the ratio of guns

held by non-criminals to criminals.

My point isn't that a permit or a registration or a cooling period is

operative, it is the lack of restriction on law-abiding citizens from holding

guns.

For example, a law against concealed weapons is only a law against

*law-abiding* citizens concealing weapons, not anyone else, because criminals

don't obey

the law, and will generally consider the benefits of concealing a weapon to

outweight the possible costs.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/18/04 2:06:30 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> I'm not disputing that there are some situations in which people would

> benefit from not having to deal with a waiting period. You are assuming,

> however, that there are more threatened people who would be hurt or killed

> if not for waiting periods than there are people who would hurt or kill

> without waiting periods, but you haven't offered any justification for that

> assumption. It appears to be faith-based, or doctrinal, rather than

> empirical or logical.

It isn't faith based, but I do concede that the evidence isn't rock solid.

93% of firearm criminals obtain guns " off the record " so they are very likely

to be ineffective. And there is simply no reason to suspect they work,

logically, because any person with ill intent who is a past criminal can simply

use a

" straw purchaser. "

There's good evidence they do harm, but no evidence they actually effectively

prevent the kinds of scenarios they are meant to prevent. Is that proof they

do more harm than good? No. But it's good grounds to sonsider it probable.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> I'm fully, 100% against any form of gun registration, and am fully, 100%

in

> favor of the right for citizens to carry concealed fire arms and to own

> so-called " assault rifles " without any sort of registration or background

checks.

Sounds like Texas. Unsure of their laws, house crime doesn't happen. Doesn't

stop violent behavior like dragging a black man behind a truck until he's

dead.

>

> It isn't true that you need to register guns... that's true of some guns,

and

> true in some places. They are pushing for registration so they can

> confiscate guns-- they say it ain't so, but it's happened before with

certain guns.

> You need a *permit* to get a gun, but you don't need the *gun* registered,

is my

> understanding.

In MA you need a federal id permit, 3 classes according to firearm you can

possess, very thorough background check, any assault charges in your history

you don't get it, sometimes mandatory training, gun registration is

mandatory from seller to buyer. Was a retired policeman who'd assaulted his

first wife before becoming policeman. He couldn't get it under this.

>

> When I say legal, I'm referring to unobstructed gun ownership, and, even

more

> imortantly, the right to carry the weapon concealed. In some places, gun

> ownership is severely restricted. In those places, the crime rate is

> proportionately higher. In most places, most people can't carry concealed

weapons. When

> such carrying is legalized, the crime rate drops proportionally.

Yes, its a constitutional right within reasoning and purpose. It's a huge

responsibilty! Am someone who was brought up that the only purpose of a gun

is as a tool to help feed the family. Thats from a father who was in WWII.

Pistols are for protecting yourself from a charging bear maybe out hunting.

All the rest self protection and war are societal ills, man made aggression.

> Background checks and cooling periods kill. There's really no reason for

> them whatsoever, and they just prevent people who need guns to defend

themselves

> in immediate circumstances from getting one.

Who in this country needs that? There's always the option to remove oneless

from such uncomfortable situations. Change your job or move if you don't

like going to the city or living where you feel like you could be assaulted.

Notify the police. People do it everyday. That's self preservation not self

defense. We were sold this house in a small town of 1000 people, not being

told the what looks like a school, actually prison nearby was only for male

juvenile sex offenders, and we have daughters. Have tried to move, feel

ripped off, does alter and abuse our quality of life everyday but we live

with it offensively. Don't use the offense as a reason for defense.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

>>>One of the tricks to the studies which purport to show that gun ownership

and concealed carry permits decrease violence is, as I understand it, that

they discount illegal gun ownership and illegal concealed carries.

----->paul, i thought of that too, but the argument for allowing law-abiding

citizens to own and carry concealed weapons, as i understand it, holds that

legal gun ownership vs. illegal gun ownership is an important distinction.

the reason being that if law-abiding citizens are permitted to carry

concealed weapons it's a *deterrent* to criminals. therefore crime rates go

down. in an area where there's lots of *illegal* gun ownership but where

law-abiding citizens are NOT permitted to own or carry guns, there tends to

be a high crime rate, because the unarmed public, as the argument goes, are

easy targets for crime.

>>>>The fact that some populations have lots of guns and lots of gun

violence

and others have lots of guns and very little gun violence indicates that

guns aren't the determining factor, people and/or culture are.

-------->if that is the case then why outlaw *gun ownership*? it's the

*people* that need " fixing " in that scenario, not the law (or lack thereof).

i actually think it could be argued that both guns AND people can be the

determining factors depending on the specific milieu of culture and gun laws

in any given place. i don't know if lott's study included other countries or

if it was just focused on the US, but i'm thinking it could be argued that

in the specific cultural milieu of the US, legal gun ownership leads to a

lower crime rate. i think that's what lott's conclusion was, in fact. but

that may not apply to *other* countries with their own unique cultural

milieu, some of which have strict laws against gun ownership and low crime

rates (which doesn't seem to work in the US). so, while legal gun ownership

might be the determining factor for low crime rates in the context of the

specific cultural milieu of the US, laws *banning* gun ownership may be the

determining factor of low crime rates in another culture. (but i also think

it's possible that some countries that have strict gun laws, may not have

higher crime rates if they removed those laws - depending on a number of

variables.)

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

Suze-

(Excuse me, Suez, or Soozey... ;->)

>the argument for allowing law-abiding

>citizens to own and carry concealed weapons, as i understand it, holds that

>legal gun ownership vs. illegal gun ownership is an important distinction.

Which argument? Not Chris's. He objects to all restrictions on gun

ownership, including background checks.

Now, for those people arguing that it's an important distinction, you have

to ask why they refuse to allow for a waiting period long enough to

actually conduct a background check. They insist on an instant check,

which cannot reliably determine which side of that distinction a

prospective customer falls on. IMO, while there are no doubt plenty of

honest advocates of the instant check, the idea itself was devised as a

political trojan horse -- a means of appealing to more of the electorate

without actually accomplishing a proper check.

>-------->if that is the case then why outlaw *gun ownership*? it's the

>*people* that need " fixing " in that scenario, not the law (or lack thereof).

Why are you arguing the point with me? I've never advocated banning

guns. In fact, I think a lot of gun control laws are grievously flawed,

and I object to the idea that gun ownership is by definition the

problem. I'm also a big fan of hunting (I'm not presently a hunter myself,

but I've enjoyed it and I think it's an essential part of a well-managed

ecology, not to mention being a valuable food source, at least if pollution

were adequately controlled) and I don't disagree that personal defense is a

rational goal. That doesn't mean I think everyone should be running around

with assault weapons, rocket launchers and tactical nukes.

-