Re: WAY OFF-TOPIC: guns

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/18/04 2:59:25 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Then your argument ignores a multiplicity of factors, such as the presence

> or absence of an illegal drug market, the jobless rate, etc.

No it doesn't, because I'm arguing that legality of gun ownership is *a*

variable not *the* variable. IOW, with the others remaining constant, there is

a

direct relationship.

> It also ignores a key fact: a lot of inner city gun violence takes place

> _between_ gun-owning parties. If a drug dealer (for example) isn't afraid

> to get into a violent confrontation with another gun-possessing drug

> dealer, why do you think he'd be afraid to take on a civilian, particularly

> considering that the drug dealer is likely to be a lot more violent and

> have more of a hair trigger than your average civilian?

I don't think drugdealers put themselves in those situations without any

discretion, but it is also a matter of cost-benefit. A drugdealer has much less

to gain by mugging a random civilian than by staking out or protecting

territory. They really aren't comparable.

But, according to Lott, that's what the evidence says. He looked at crime

rates over 18 years taking into account every single county in the US and he

looked at inner cities within them. His research is by far the most

comprehensive done, and the way its described it sounds accurate. His claim is

that the

inner cities experienced the *largest* drop in violent crime when full access

to guns were allowed.

So I'm not basing my argument on speculation, I'm basing it on *that*. To

the extent I can explain the figures, I'll try, but the main thing to consider

isn't what either of us would *expect* to happen, but what the evidence

actually shows it does.

> The inescapable conclusion is that gun possession does not have an

> automatic protective effect.

The inescapable conclusion, if Lott's evidence is correct, is that gun access

and legalization of gun possession and concealment has a protective effect.

No one cares about " possession " itself having a protective effect, and no one

argues that it does.

>

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

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

>

> No, the reasoning is garbage. Here it is:

>

> >>Bill: Don't get me wrong, I think people should be allowed to own

> >>firearms, but only if they pass a background check.

> >>

> >>Me: Background checks don't work. A Justice Department study of felons

> >>showed that 93% of firearm criminals obtained their most recent guns

> >> " off-the-record. " [14] News accounts have shown that a small number of

> >>criminals obtain their guns through retail outlets but they use easily

> >>acquired fake IDs or use substitute buyers, known as " straw purchasers, "

> >>to buy their weapons.[15]

>

> First, stipulate that background checks would only work in 7% of

> cases. Then it would be necessary to determine whether those 7% of cases

> outnumber the instances in which someone would run out and buy a gun to

> kill someone (such as a cheating spouse) on impulse, but these people are

> arguing that they've proven we shouldn't have background checks.

I don't think you're interpreting it properly. That's an argument against

background checks, but background checks aren't really helpful in preventing the

situations you're talking about-- though cooling periods might be-- and that

7% of firearm criminals bought guns on the record doesn't mean the background

check prevented their crime.

>

> Second, that figure is not even applicable to the case in question

> anyway. A lot of those firearm criminals, probably the vast majority of

> them, are NOT the type I'm talking about. They're people who already have

> guns and use them in their criminal lives -- drug dealers, for

> example. I'm talking about people who do not already have guns and who

> would commit impulse gun crimes if they could get guns instantly but who

> wouldn't if there were a sufficient waiting period. Crimes of passion

> exist and aren't exactly rare.

Right, that's a cooling period, not background check. So it isn't

appropriate for you to call their reasoning " garbage " when you are pitting their

reasoning against your argument for cooling periods, rather than the fictitious

debater's argument for background checks.

That said, guns are used defensively much, much, much more often than they

are used defensively. So, in the absence of more precise information, I'd make

the extrapolation that more defensive uses of guns than offensive would be

prevented by cooling periods. Granted, that extrapolation is just that-- an

extrapolation-- and might not be entirely valid. But it's the best thing to go

on

in the absence of hard figures.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/18/04 7:13:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> I find it interesting that with all the controversy of hand gun ownership,

> there hasn't been much controversy over more control over

> car driving. States are beginning to have laws whereby new drivers

> can't drive with friends without adult supervision (they can drive

> to work, but not go out with their buds in a car). The laws are

> based on statistics over who causes the most traffic deaths ... usually

> males under 25.

I find it awful that no one has instituted registration for 5-gallon buckets

too, which kill far more children than guns.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>Second, that figure is not even applicable to the case in question

>anyway. A lot of those firearm criminals, probably the vast majority of

>them, are NOT the type I'm talking about. They're people who already have

>guns and use them in their criminal lives -- drug dealers, for

>example. I'm talking about people who do not already have guns and who

>would commit impulse gun crimes if they could get guns instantly but who

>wouldn't if there were a sufficient waiting period. Crimes of passion

>exist and aren't exactly rare.

:

I find it interesting that with all the controversy of hand gun ownership,

there hasn't been much controversy over more control over

car driving. States are beginning to have laws whereby new drivers

can't drive with friends without adult supervision (they can drive

to work, but not go out with their buds in a car). The laws are

based on statistics over who causes the most traffic deaths ... usually

males under 25.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/19/04 12:22:08 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> How on earth are you supposed to enforce that?

>

> >States are beginning to have laws whereby new drivers

> >can't drive with friends without adult supervision (they can drive

> >to work, but not go out with their buds in a car).

They did this in my state. My God is this utterly tyrannical for a teenager.

It just makes you want to do very, very nasty things to legilslators.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/19/04 2:25:22 AM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> My nephew totalled 2 cars in one month. Fortunately he lives.

> He is an honor student and very responsible ... but at 16 years

> old, emotions run high! It might be tyrannical, but it will

> probably save a lot of lives. Besides, what Universal Power

> declared that teenagers have the " right " to drive alone?

When you're a teenager, you don't care where the " right " came from, you just

want it.

But what's absolutely tyrannical about it is it means, say, a 16 year old

couldn't take his girlfriend on a date to the movies.

I also got in two accidents within my first year or so of driving. In the

first one, it was snowing and it wasn't sanded, and I lost friction on the road,

and started spinning around in 360s in a linear trajectory that felt like 50

mph, until I straightened out and slid at the same speed backwards down the

left lane, and then shot into the woods and got stuck on a big hump of frozen

ground. The other one was minor compared to that.

Both times I was alone.

The fact is, I was learning to drive. That's just what happens. You need

experience. I don't think it matters much if you start at 14, or 15, 16, or 17,

but you are bound to get in a couple accidents within the first year of

driving. I think just about everyone does. And you don't need to be with

people

or smoking pot to do it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

How on earth are you supposed to enforce that?

>States are beginning to have laws whereby new drivers

>can't drive with friends without adult supervision (they can drive

>to work, but not go out with their buds in a car).

-

[Guest guest]

>They did this in my state. My God is this utterly tyrannical for a teenager.

>It just makes you want to do very, very nasty things to legilslators.

>

>Chris

My nephew totalled 2 cars in one month. Fortunately he lives.

He is an honor student and very responsible ... but at 16 years

old, emotions run high! It might be tyrannical, but it will

probably save a lot of lives. Besides, what Universal Power

declared that teenagers have the " right " to drive alone?

-- Heidi

(BTW my boyfriend in highschool drove off the freeway

while coming to pick me up for a date ... he became

paraplegic. I have no sympathy for teenage male drivers ...

I think young males are programmed to kill themselves off in

" duels " and they tend to do it on the freeway).

[Guest guest]

>Heidi-

>

>How on earth are you supposed to enforce that?

>

>>States are beginning to have laws whereby new drivers

>>can't drive with friends without adult supervision (they can drive

>>to work, but not go out with their buds in a car).

> -

Same way you enforce seat belt laws or drunk driving ... if a cop

sees a bunch of teens in a car speeding, he gives them a

BIG ticket. Really, the " partyers " aren't very hard to spot,

and I think the ones driving rationally aren't a problem. I particularly

love the cars with kids crammed into them every which way, all laughing

their heads off, swerving around to get past everyone else.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>But what's absolutely tyrannical about it is it means, say, a 16 year old

>couldn't take his girlfriend on a date to the movies.

Ha. And I'm a real tyrant there. I don't believe in car-dating either! (Yeah,

I know, I'll have to duke it out with my kids, but in most other cultures

teenagers

don't just get to take off by themselves with no adult supervision).

The fact is, I was learning to drive. That's just what happens. You need

>experience. I don't think it matters much if you start at 14, or 15, 16, or

17,

>but you are bound to get in a couple accidents within the first year of

>driving. I think just about everyone does. And you don't need to be with

people

>or smoking pot to do it.

When one learns to drive an airplane though, one is required to have

LOTS of time with an experienced person to get a license. Good

point that the starting age isn't the main point, though it IS awfully

important. You may not have gotten in those accidents if you

had a more experienced person with you -- or that person

may have taken the wheel when the roads were icy.

I don't like cars though ... the fact you NEED a car to do anything

in this country is a kind of tyranny in itself. In many towns in

Europe, you can live, work, and vacation quite happily without

worrying where you parked the silly thing, or paying 1/4 of your

salary a year supporting it.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Sixteen year olds do not have the maturity to laugh and joke with a car full

of kids and pay attention to the road at the same time.

Several years ago on the last day of school four teenagers, all 16 or under,

were killed when the driver failed to stop at a stop sign and ran the car

under a semi passing on the state highway.

I work for seven years at a Job Corps center, and the difference in maturity

between the 16 year olds and the 17 year olds was amazing.

Judith Alta

Re: WAY OFF-TOPIC: guns

>But what's absolutely tyrannical about it is it means, say, a 16 year old

>couldn't take his girlfriend on a date to the movies.

Ha. And I'm a real tyrant there. I don't believe in car-dating either!

(Yeah,

I know, I'll have to duke it out with my kids, but in most other cultures

teenagers

don't just get to take off by themselves with no adult supervision).

The fact is, I was learning to drive. That's just what happens. You need

>experience. I don't think it matters much if you start at 14, or 15, 16,

or 17,

>but you are bound to get in a couple accidents within the first year of

>driving. I think just about everyone does. And you don't need to be with

people

>or smoking pot to do it.

When one learns to drive an airplane though, one is required to have

LOTS of time with an experienced person to get a license. Good

point that the starting age isn't the main point, though it IS awfully

important. You may not have gotten in those accidents if you

had a more experienced person with you -- or that person

may have taken the wheel when the roads were icy.

I don't like cars though ... the fact you NEED a car to do anything

in this country is a kind of tyranny in itself. In many towns in

Europe, you can live, work, and vacation quite happily without

worrying where you parked the silly thing, or paying 1/4 of your

salary a year supporting it.

-- Heidi