Originally Posted by Odin

Folks, just ignore Eric's anti-gun rants, his mind is shut tight.

But mine isn't. If Eric can provide me sufficient evidence that their are net benefits to banning guns, then I will change my position.

Also, I am hoping to convince others that even if their are net benefits to banning guns, a gun ban will not fundamentally address the problems of violence in America.

I concede accidental deaths due to firearms would drop. However, the effect on suicides would be negligible. Finally, knives, box cutters, machetes and baseball bats are incredibly effective weapons when one doesn't have to worry about coming up against a gun.

Great Cartoon.

Originally Posted by Xer H

Great. Here are my questions. Of course, any Boomer can weigh in. The more the merrier!

1. When did you first identify with one party or another (i.e., what age or political event motivated you)?

The election of 1952, when I was five years old. I had grasped that my father would lose his job if Eisenhower won. For the rest of my youth my family's fortunes and the Democratic Party's were intimately intertwined. But I certainly became a serious, committed Democrat on my own in the 1961-5 era.

2. Have you noticed any differences in what the parties "stand for" over time? If so, did it ever lead you to question your affiliation or loyalty?

There are huge differences, even though both parties have moved way to the right. As I said a month or two ago, we now have moderate Republicans, known as Democrats, and conservative Republicans, known as Republicans. I have been very disappointed in Obama and am even more so now that he has abandoned any residual liberalism, but he is still far superior to anything the other side will offer.

3. What "drives" your party loyalty now? Is it a perception of differences in ideology, in actual legislation, in overall outlook for the country's future? Some mix or prioritization of these? Something else?

My party loyalty is driven in large part by traditions which my party has abandoned, I freely admit; but at the same time, even though I can't even bring myself to open most of the emails President Obama sends me, he is so far superior to the Republicans, who have completely lost touch with reality, that I'm bound to vote for him again. As I've been saying, we need government in this country, and Democrats try, at least, to provide it.

Looking forward to some insight. As an Xer whose earliest political memory was my mother putting me in front of a television and telling me, "Watch this. This will be important someday." (to Nixon's resignation speech), I guess I've always had an equal like/dislike of the parties themselves. I've seen the GOP transition from Nixon to Reagan to Bush/Cheney. I've seen the Democratic Party transition from Carter to Clinton to Obama. I feel no allegiance to either. So I'd really like to understand how that's developed for the Boomer generation, because it does seem to be a fairly common trait among Boomers.

It occurred to me quite a while ago that Xers had never seen the government do anything very great or very memorable, but I had. I feel lucky that way.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

It occurred to me quite a while ago that Xers had never seen the government do anything very great or very memorable, but I had. I feel lucky that way.

Hopefully we will though, on the other side of this 4T.

Originally Posted by Odin

Folks, just ignore Eric's anti-gun rants, his mind is shut tight.

Yeah, but is yours open? That's the point.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

It has nothing to do with your lack of support. You are entitled to your opinion. I could care less. It's your desire to use the monikers of "law" and "democracy" to bend others to your will.

Law has to be a collective decision. I can't bend others to my will personally.

I don't believe I have ever made that a secret.

I don't think I quite trust a guy who has a gun by his bed. There's lots of other people around whom I don't trust enough to do away with law and government. You are foolish to think otherwise. Do you trust Jared Loughner? I don't.

Anarchy is not freedom; it is simply my power against everybody else's power. The one who wins the fight, has all the power. Anarchy lasts about 2 minutes; tops.

It doesn't make any difference since you asked. I have already written on this very board that rights do not really exist. Rights by nature are human inventions, which is why they can be altered or stripped away by the whim of anyone with a shred of power. Laws created (or rights "granted") by a dictator are little different then those of the mob. As I said, their only purpose is to create a system of control for one person over another. While that might be your interest, it is not mine. Lack of control is terrifying to your kind. It never has been for me.

Well you don't really know what "kind" I am, or anyone else is. Control is necessary, since humans aren't perfect. It isn't my control, unless I am a dictator. In a democracy, the process controls, and we all have the right to our opinion about what the law should be.

You incorrectly assume that the constitution grants the freedom to own a weapon. It doesn't. I grant me that freedom.

Others may grant themselves the freedom to take it away from you, under agreed upon circumstances. You may also grant yourself the freedom to USE your weapon. The law then will also decide whether you should keep your freedom, in that case, depending on what they decide that you did.

For that to happen Eric, you would first need to remove the monkey from the banana.

I take it your answer is no; there is no unspoiled democracy. Unless I don't understand your metaphor.

Originally Posted by RyanJH

But mine isn't. If Eric can provide me sufficient evidence that their are net benefits to banning guns, then I will change my position.

Also, I am hoping to convince others that even if their are net benefits to banning guns, a gun ban will not fundamentally address the problems of violence in America.

I concede accidental deaths due to firearms would drop. However, the effect on suicides would be negligible. Finally, knives, box cutters, machetes and baseball bats are incredibly effective weapons when one doesn't have to worry about coming up against a gun.

Yes, but mace and dogs can work against those. Or burglar alarms. There are many methods.

I think there are other causes besides rampant guns for the violence in America (I already said that, just in case you missed it )

I think Kleck is probably the source of the pro-gun stats, and that he is out on his own. I think I remember that from before. But I'm sure I'll need to do more research.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes, but mace and dogs can work against those. Or burglar alarms. There are many methods.

Of course, carrying a dog with you isn't particularly practical (at least, the ones that fit easily in a purse and the ones that might be able to deter an assailant aren't the same dogs). And burglar alarms are good at startling robbers, but they don't actually do anything beyond that.

And as for mace... have you ever been maced? I have. It sucks really bad, to be sure. Really bad. But it's not going to stop a person.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Law has to be a collective decision. I can't bend others to my will personally.

See: "Mob rule."

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't think I quite trust a guy who has a gun by his bed.

That's okay Eric, I don't trust you. Trust is earned. You ain't remotely qualified yet.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There's lots of other people around whom I don't trust enough to do away with law and government. You are foolish to think otherwise. Do you trust Jared Loughner? I don't.

Of course not, hence that big, scary gun beside my bed.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Anarchy is not freedom; it is simply my power against everybody else's power. The one who wins the fight, has all the power. Anarchy lasts about 2 minutes; tops.

I never said it was. Its goal is not freedom or comfort or a better job or bigger house.

Of course it also isn't what you believe it is.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well you don't really know what "kind" I am, or anyone else is. Control is necessary, since humans aren't perfect. It isn't my control, unless I am a dictator. In a democracy, the process controls, and we all have the right to our opinion about what the law should be.

Oh I think I know your kind pretty well Eric.

You also don't live in a democracy. If you think the control in this country lies within the process, then I've got a real nice deal on a bridge you might be interested in.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Others may grant themselves the freedom to take it away from you, under agreed upon circumstances. You may also grant yourself the freedom to USE your weapon. The law then will also decide whether you should keep your freedom, in that case, depending on what they decide that you did.

And that's precisely what frightens you so much isn't it? To learn how little in control you really are. People really are free to choose to do whatever they want. Law ultimately can't stop them. It can only harass those in a state of weakness, or perhaps even kill the powerless, but it will never be able to stop free will.

Entropy will always increase.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yeah, but is yours open? That's the point.

My mind is open. Unfortunately, nothing you have said directly relates to me or any of my firearms.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

"Woof, woof!" better protects a homeowner than does "Bang, bang!"

Your pooch can never be grabbed by a crook and used against you. It has keener senses than a crook trying to sneak into a house.

I actually have both, but the dog barks at just about everything so she isn't a ton of help!

Originally Posted by Dedalus

I actually have both, but the dog barks at just about everything so she isn't a ton of help!

My dog, Habiba, was more of a "I'll bark and pretend to be scary when I'm behind a fence, but you get in front and protect me if I ever meet with a stranger in person" kind of a dog.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I think Kleck is probably the source of the pro-gun stats, and that he is out on his own. I think I remember that from before. But I'm sure I'll need to do more research.

All right Eric, for the sake of discussion, let's completely disregard Kleck.

Instead let's use the 2002 Task Force on Community Preventative Services to the CDC on Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Reducing Violence: Firearms Laws. I have extracted the conclusions from the Executive Summary of the report below for a quick synopsis.

<-----Extract Follows-------->

Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws for the following reasons.

• Bans on specified firearms or ammunition. Results of studies of firearms and ammunition bans were inconsistent: certain studies indicated decreases in violence associated with bans, and others indicated increases. Several studies found that the number of banned guns retrieved after a crime declined when bans were enacted, but these studies did not assess violent consequences (16,17). Studies of the 1976 Washington, D.C. handgun ban yielded inconsistent results (18--20). Bans often include "grandfather" provisions, allowing ownership of an item if it is acquired before the ban, complicating an assessment of causality. Finally, evidence indicated that sales of firearms to be banned might increase in the period before implementation of the bans (e.g., the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994) (21).
• Restrictions on firearm acquisition. The federal government and individual states restrict the acquisition and use of firearms by individuals on the basis of their personal history. Reasons for restriction can include prior felony conviction, conviction of misdemeanor intimate partner violence, drug abuse, adjudication as "mentally defective,"†† and other characteristics (e.g., specified young age). The Brady Law (22) established national restrictions on acquisition of firearms and ammunition from federal firearms licensees. The interim Brady Law (1994--1998) mandated a 5-day waiting period to allow background checks. The permanent Brady Law, enacted in 1998, eliminated the required waiting period. It normally allows 3 days for a background check, after which, if no evidence of a prohibited characteristic is found, the purchase may proceed (23). Certain states have established additional restrictions, and some require background checks of all firearms transactions, not only those conducted by federal firearms licensees.
  The permanent Brady Law depends on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). However, NICS lacks much of the required background information, particularly on certain restriction categories (23). Efforts to improve the availability of background information have been supported by the National Criminal History Improvement Program (24). Approximately 689,000 applications to acquire a firearm (2.3% of 30 million applications) were denied under the Brady Law from its first implementation in 1994 through 2000 (25); the majority of denials were based on the applicant's criminal history. However, denial of an application does not always stop applicants from acquiring firearms through other means.
  Overall, evaluations of the effects of acquisition restrictions on violent outcomes have produced inconsistent findings: some studies indicated decreases in violence associated with restrictions, and others indicated increases. One study indicated a statistically significant reduction in the rate of suicide by firearms among persons aged >55 years; however, the reduction in suicide by all methods was not statistically significant. Furthermore, this benefit appears to have been a consequence of the waiting period imposed by the interim Brady Law (which has since been dropped in the permanent law) rather than of the law's restrictions on the basis of the purchaser's characteristics (26).
• Waiting periods for firearm acquisition. Waiting periods for firearm acquisition require a specified delay between application for and acquisition of a firearm. Waiting periods have been established by the federal government and by states to allow time to check the applicant's background or to provide a "cooling-off" period for persons at risk of committing suicide or impulsive acts against others. Studies of the effects of waiting periods on violent outcomes yielded inconsistent results: some indicated a decrease in violent outcome associated with the delay and others indicated an increase. As noted previously, one study of the interim Brady Law indicated a statistically significant reduction in firearms suicide among persons aged >55 years associated with the waiting period requirement of the interim law. Several studies suggested a partial "substitution effect" for suicide (i.e., decreases in firearms suicide are accompanied by smaller increases in suicide by other means) (26).
• Firearm registration and licensing of owners. Registration requires that a record of the owner of specified firearms be created and retained (27). At the national level, the Firearm Ownership Protection Act of 1986 specifically precludes the federal government from establishing and maintaining a registry of firearms and their owners. Licensing requires an individual to obtain a license or other form of authorization or certification to purchase or possess a firearm (27). Licensing and registration requirements are often combined with other firearms regulations, such as safety training or safe storage requirements. Only four studies examined the effects of registration and licensing on violent outcomes; the findings were inconsistent.
• "Shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws. Shall issue concealed weapon carry laws (shall issue laws) require the issuing of a concealed weapon carry permit to all applicants not disqualified by specified criteria. Shall issue laws are usually implemented in place of "may issue" laws, in which the issuing of a concealed weapon carry permit is discretionary (based on criteria such as the perceived need or moral character of the applicant). A third alternative, total prohibition of the carrying of concealed weapons, was in effect in six states in 2001.
  The substantial number of studies of shall issue laws largely derives from and responds to one landmark study (28). Many of these studies were considered to be nonindependent because they assessed the same intervention in the same population during similar time periods. A review of the data revealed critical problems, including misclassification of laws, unreliable county-level crime data, and failure to use appropriate denominators for the available numerator crime data (29). Methodological problems, such as failure to adjust for autocorrelation in time series data, were also evident. Results across studies were inconsistent or conceptually implausible. Therefore, evidence was insufficient to determine the effect of shall issue laws on violent outcomes.
• Child access prevention laws. Child access prevention (CAP) laws are designed to limit children's access to and use of firearms in homes. The laws require firearms owners to store their firearms locked, unloaded, or both, and make the firearm owners liable when children use a household firearm to threaten or harm themselves or others. In three states with CAP laws (Florida, Connecticut, California), this crime is a felony; in several others it is a misdemeanor.
  Only three studies examined the effects of CAP laws on violent outcomes, and only one outcome, unintentional firearms deaths, was assessed by all three. Of these, two studies assessed the same states over the same time periods and were therefore nonindependent. The most recent study, which included the most recent states to pass CAP laws and had the longest follow-up time, indicated that the apparent reduction in unintentional firearm deaths associated with CAP laws that carry felony sanctions was statistically significant only in Florida and not in California or Connecticut (30). Overall, too few studies of CAP law effects have been done, and the findings of existing studies were inconsistent. In addition, although CAP laws address juveniles as perpetrators of firearms violence, available studies assessed only juvenile victims of firearms violence.
• Zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools. The Gun-Free Schools Act (31) stipulates that each state receiving federal funds must have a state law requiring local educational agencies to expel a student from school for at least 1 year if a firearm is found in the student's possession at school. Expulsion may lead to alternative school placement or to "street" placement (full expulsion, with no linkage to formal education). In contrast to the 3,523 firearms reported confiscated under the Gun-Free Schools Act in the 1998--99 school year, school surveys (32) indicate that an estimated 3% of the 12th grade student population in 1996 (i.e., 85,350 students) reported carrying firearms on school property one or more times in the previous 30 days. Thus, even if only 12th grade students carry firearms, fewer than 4.3% of firearms are being detected in association with the Gun-Free Schools Act.
  No study reviewed attempted to evaluate the effects of zero tolerance laws on violence in schools, nor did any measure the effect of the Gun-Free Schools Act on carrying of firearms in schools. One cross-sectional study, however, assessed the effectiveness of metal detector programs in reducing the carrying of firearms in schools (33). Although firearms detection is not explicitly required in the Gun-Free Schools Act, the effectiveness of the law may depend on the ability to detect firearms by various means. The study reported that schools with and without metal detectors did not differ in rates of threatening, fights, or carrying of firearms outside of school, but the rate of carrying firearms to, from, or in schools with detection programs was half that of schools without such programs. The effectiveness of zero tolerance laws in preventing violence cannot be assessed because appropriate evidence was not available. A further concern is that "street" expulsion might result in increased violence and other problems among expelled students.
• Combinations of firearms laws. Governmental jurisdictions (e.g., states or nations) can be characterized by the degree to which they regulate firearm possession and use. Whether a greater degree of firearms regulation in a jurisdiction results in a reduction of the amount of violence in that jurisdiction still needs to be determined. Three kinds of evidence were reviewed for this study: 1) studies of the effects of comprehensive national laws within nations; 2) international comparisons of comprehensive laws; and 3) studies in which law types within jurisdictions (i.e., regulation of specific, defined aspects of firearm acquisition and use) were categorized and counted, and counts compared with rates of specific forms of violence within the same jurisdictions. The latter type are referred to here as index studies because they developed indices of the degree of regulation. In drawing conclusions about law combinations, findings from the three approaches were considered.
  On the basis of national law assessments (the Gun Control Act of 1968 in the United States and the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1977 in Canada), international comparisons (between the United States and Canada), and index studies (all conducted within the United States), available evidence was insufficient to determine whether the degree of firearms regulation was associated with decreased (or increased) violence. The findings were inconsistent and most studies were methodologically inadequate to allow conclusions about causal effects. Moreover, as conducted, index studies, even if consistent, would not allow specification of which laws to implement.

In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence. References and key findings are listed (Table).


<-------Extract Ends--------->

My problems with adopting more aggressive gun controls or banning guns as a solution to our violence problems are threefold.

First, most gun control proponents only address the costs to society of firearms and fail to address the benefits side of the equation or if they do so, they address it on a theoretical basis only. I am a Gen Xer, show me the evidence.

Second, even if we disregard Kleck's studies or any others of a similar nature, there is not sufficient evidence to establish causality between gun regulation / banning and reductions in violence. Note, there is sufficient evidence to indicate implementing safety regulations, when done under the right conditions, will reduce accidental firearms deaths.

By the way, I concede that there is a correlation between non-violent cultures and the prevalence of weapons in that culture. The evidence I have reviewed indicates that non-violent cultures simply choose not to have a whole bunch of weapons, not that removing weapons from a violent culture induces them to become non-violent. Usually, violent cultures find new weapons when the old weapons become unavailable.

Third, the struggle between the opponents and proponents of gun control as a primary solution to violence in America distracts efforts from addressing the real root causes for our violence problems.

OK, I'll answer as an Aquarian-wave Boomer. I share my birth year (and first name) with David Kaiser.

Originally Posted by Xer H

Great. Here are my questions. Of course, any Boomer can weigh in. The more the merrier!

1. When did you first identify with one party or another (i.e., what age or political event motivated you)?

I had I Like Ike buttons all over my bedroom (age 9). My parents were Rockefeller Republicans. I liked Kennedy, and was shocked at his assassination. I backed LBJ's domestic policies but not his foreign policy. I've been independent since, except for my brief affiliation with the Liberal Party.

Originally Posted by Xer H ...

2. Have you noticed any differences in what the parties "stand for" over time? If so, did it ever lead you to question your affiliation or loyalty?

Yes. Both major parties have drifted to the right and south. The right politically and the south socially.

Originally Posted by Xer H ...

3. What "drives" your party loyalty now? Is it a perception of differences in ideology, in actual legislation, in overall outlook for the country's future? Some mix or prioritization of these? Something else?

I have none.

Originally Posted by Xer H ...

Looking forward to some insight. As an Xer whose earliest political memory was my mother putting me in front of a television and telling me, "Watch this. This will be important someday." (to Nixon's resignation speech), I guess I've always had an equal like/dislike of the parties themselves. I've seen the GOP transition from Nixon to Reagan to Bush/Cheney. I've seen the Democratic Party transition from Carter to Clinton to Obama. I feel no allegiance to either. So I'd really like to understand how that's developed for the Boomer generation, because it does seem to be a fairly common trait among Boomers.

I know exactly where I was and what I was doing when they announced that Kennedy had been shot. It's still a strong memory. I remember LBJ's I will not run speech and the Nixon resignation. I remember far too many assassinations.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

See, you see things differently than I do. I don't care quite so much about the "military" nature of a given weapon or vehicle. I know that a well-crafted hunting rifle is functionally equivalent to a sniper rifle. I know that a jet fighter without the stuff that makes it a fighter is just a jet -- a vehicle. It's no different, conceptually, from a jeep with a mounting for a .50 caliber machine gun but no .50 caliber machine gun. To the minimal extent that people are interested in buying jet fighters, it's a collectors' market.

OK, I can go along with an unarmed jet as a rich person's ultimate toy. I have a problem with high caliber weapons, though. One of my coworkers has several, and keeps buying more ... and he shoot them. Where on the East Coast is it safe to shoot a 50 caliber rifle ... with a 52 inch barrel. They are legal in Virginia.

Originally Posted by Semo '75 ...

When it comes to artillery, such weapons are strictly regulated and taxed heavily by the ATF. Even in the one scenario you could come up with, the best a criminal could manage was to turn it into a high-velocity baseball launcher (in what seems to have been one of the few counties in the United States, if not the only one, in which the cops will shrug their shoulders at people firing artillery at trucks on the road). Beyond that one case, the market for artillery seems to be a collectors' market. As far as I've been able to ascertain, artillery pieces are owned primarily by collectors, prop companies, and war reenactors.

Was it a fluke or merely a case where the owner was crazy enough to make its presence known?

Originally Posted by Semo '75 ...

So no, it does not alarm me at all that some prop company provided a German 20mm autocannon for a scene in Saving Private Ryan. It does not alarm me that Civil War reenactors roll out antique cannons. It does not alarm me that a small handful of people buy jet fighters to display in their hangars or fly over the heads of spectators at air shows. Not only do these uses do no harm to me, they do no harm to anyone else, either.

OK, you listed situation that are OK with me too. All involve some oversight by the legal authorities.

Originally Posted by Semo '75 ...

I've never gotten all of the talk about exotic weapons. The firearms used most in crimes in the United States include the Mossberg 12 gauge and the Raven Arms .25 Semiautomatic. At the top of the list is the venerable Smith & Wesson .38 Revolver. These weapons aren't particularly exotic, they have no "assault rifle" features, they don't fire .50 caliber rounds, and some aren't even semi-automatic. None would really get a lot of benefit out of high-capacity magazines.

All good points, and reasons for oversight. High capacity magazines are an issue, though. Crazy with 6 shots is not crazy with 30.

Originally Posted by Semo '75 ...

I've never had someone hold me up with a jet fighter, but I did have someone point a revolver in my face and demand my money. The young woman I saw shot outside of a club back in 1992 (when she didn't hand over her money to a thug) wasn't shot from long range with a howitzer, it was close up with a small revolver. When I was little and my dad went out front to stop a guy from beating on his girlfriend, the guy didn't pull out a .50 Caliber Sniper Rifle it was, again, a "humble" revolver.

And that weapon was available because ...

Originally Posted by Semo '75 ...

To the extent that I think that gun control is important, I try to approach it rationally. It's obvious to me that dudes who take their .50 caliber sniper rifles out to long-range shooting competitions aren't the problem. The problem isn't cannon collectors or guys with the money to buy air-show grade jet fighters.

Basically, I see no reason to advocate taking away freedoms that people are enjoying responsibly because other people are committing crimes with a completely different class of weapons. It's that simple.

The capability of a functional weapon is important. It's more important in our lax environment. When i was younger, there were RW militias, much like today. Then, they were taken seriously. I remember several cases where BATF raids confiscated enough military grade weaponry and ammo to start a small war. That's scary, and I have no reason to feel that there aren't a few of those folks out there today. Let them rant and rave. Just keep them armed lightly if at all.

Originally Posted by Odin

Folks, just ignore Eric's anti-gun rants, his mind is shut tight.

And yours aren't? Give Eric credit. He dug-out the data. If you have a problem with the data, argue that.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

...Its a nice legal argument, but it still fails the sanity test I prefer to use: the Constitution is not a suicide pact. The 2nd is decades out of touch with the reality that germinated it. Its archaic and should be defunct. We will rue the days they were.

1) The FFs put it in because if you don't have the right to self defense, then everything else is a joke (see Beccaria). That is not, and never will be, "defunct";

2) The right to self defense does not constitute a "suicide pact"; depending on the police to protect you, when they are under no legal obligation to do so, is a suicide pact.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

And yours aren't? Give Eric credit. He dug-out the data. If you have a problem with the data, argue that.

-No, Eric ignores the evidence. How many people have pointed out the studies which show that privately owned firearms prevent hundreds of thousands of crimes every year?

This guy took another shot. Eric doesn't care about facts.

Originally Posted by RyanJH

Let's assume that Hemenway is correct. This would then follow that Kleck's analysis that guns save 65 lives to every 1 lost should be reduced to guns save 6.5 lives to every 1 lost.

Unless you are arguing that Kleck's analysis should be reduced 65 times or more, these numbers still support an argument that availability of guns saves more lives that it costs, even when including the suicides...

But the Self-Proclaimed One-Eyed God of Wisdom is closed-minded.

Originally Posted by JDG '66

This guy took another shot. Eric doesn't care about facts.
But the Self-Proclaimed One-Eyed God of Wisdom is closed-minded.

I hold no hope of changing Eric's mind, but perhaps he can change my mind. From my previous post...

Originally Posted by RyanJH

If Eric can provide me sufficient evidence that their are net benefits to banning guns, then I will change my position.

Also, I am hoping to convince others that even if their are net benefits to banning guns, a gun ban will not fundamentally address the problems of violence in America.

I concede accidental deaths due to firearms would drop. However, the effect on suicides would be negligible.

Violent cultures are not induced to become less violent by taking away their weapons, they find new weapons. That is why I think the effect on homicides would also be negligible.

An insignificant, albeit very sensational, portion of firearms related violence comes from high capacity magazines or assault weapons.

Emotional arguments over assault weapons and high capacity magazines distracts us from any real net benefits that might occur from gun control regulations.

Emotional arguments over gun control regulations distracts us from addressing the more substantive causes of violence in our society: urbanization, economic disparities, weakened civic institutions, cultural aspects, contact between disparate cultures - particularly if two or more are predisposed to violence and economic disparities unduly affect one or more of them, and Nomad archetypes passing through the ages of 14 to 24.

Disclosure: I don't own any firearms. My current situation does not justify the risk or expense of keeping personal firearms. If I need firearms for my work or to keep in practice, they are issued to me. That is a choice I make based on my assessment of my conditions. I need actual evidence, not beliefs based off emotion, that additional gun regulations / bans will provide a net benefit to our society to change my position.

Originally Posted by RyanJH

Let's assume that Hemenway is correct. This would then follow that Kleck's analysis that guns save 65 lives to every 1 lost should be reduced to guns save 6.5 lives to every 1 lost.

Unless you are arguing that Kleck's analysis should be reduced 65 times or more, these numbers still support an argument that availability of guns saves more lives that it costs, even when including the suicides.

Excluding the suicides, since there is evidence (see previous postings) that suicides are not deterred by absence of guns, then the reduction in Kleck's analysis needs to be even greater, perhaps over two orders of magnitude greater.

If Kleck wasn't a darling of the NRA, I might feel his analyses were more reliable.

Originally Posted by JDG '66

1) The FFs put it in because if you don't have the right to self defense, then everything else is a joke (see Beccaria). That is not, and never will be, "defunct";

2) The right to self defense does not constitute a "suicide pact"; depending on the police to protect you, when they are under no legal obligation to do so, is a suicide pact.

The keeping of firearms for personal protection was already established in English Common Law, which we adopted. The 2nd is not about self protection.

M&L,

You're basically making the argument that some weapons are too dangerous to own, which I actually agree with to a degree. However, the fact that your coworker owns them and fires them safely, with no harm to anybody else, suggests that such weapons are not too dangerous to own. I don't fire .50 caliber weapons myself. I don't know where people who fire them go to do so. However, your coworker does in fact fire them without splattering everybody's brains all over the place (intentionally or unintentionally), so you might want to ask him that question.

You are right that crazy with six rounds is different from crazy with thirty. Nonetheless, high-capacity magazines are used so rarely in crimes that I see it as a non-issue. I maintain that the bigger issue here has nothing to do with the size of the magazines he used. Crazy with six rounds would still have been horrific.

According to the investigating authority, Loughner made some number of death threats to unspecified individuals, which the police had investigated. Why was he never charged? Did the police simply think that he was a harmless kook? If they thought he was crazy, why didn't they petition the court to force him to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, which would have been relatively easy under the current Arizona law?

It's obvious that the availability of high-capacity magazines allowed him to kill more people, what's not obvious is that their lack of availability would have stopped him. A conviction for making death threats might have. A psychiatric evaluation might have.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

If Kleck wasn't a darling of the NRA, I might feel his analyses were more reliable.

I try to avoid throwing out data because of the source, because it supports an argument contrary to a position I currently hold or because it supports a position held by an organization I don't agree with.

Its harder to do your own homework and looking through peer reviewed journals, while providing better data for decisions, is, quite frankly, a struggle. But it really is the only way to get to an informed decision. I don't count sensational media stories about single occurrences, even if there are multiple such stories, as sufficient evidence for a to take a stand on a national policy decision.

Note that my response was to accept Hemenway's criticism of Kleck's work and adjust Kleck's conclusions by Hemenway's recommended numbers. It still did not provide evidence supporting a hypothesis that there are net positive benefits to increased gun controls or banning guns. Thus I had no need to get into the gory details of attempting validate one data set over another.

Even after this concession, Eric implied that Kleck shouldn't even be considered. For the sake of discussion, I accepted that and offered a report to the CDC for consideration.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I think Kleck is probably the source of the pro-gun stats, and that he is out on his own. I think I remember that from before. But I'm sure I'll need to do more research.

Originally Posted by RyanJH

All right Eric, for the sake of discussion, let's completely disregard Kleck.

Instead let's use the 2002 Task Force on Community Preventative Services to the CDC on Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Reducing Violence: Firearms Laws. I have extracted the conclusions from the Executive Summary of the report below for a quick synopsis.

<-----Extract Follows-------->

(Most of the extract I quoted has been deleted for the sake of brevity. Please see the link or previous posting if your are curious)

In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence. References and key findings are listed (Table).

Originally Posted by Semo '75

M&L,

You're basically making the argument that some weapons are too dangerous to own, which I actually agree with to a degree. However, the fact that your coworker owns them and fires them safely, with no harm to anybody else, suggests that such weapons are not too dangerous to own. I don't fire .50 caliber weapons myself. I don't know where people who fire them go to do so. However, your coworker does in fact fire them without splattering everybody's brains all over the place (intentionally or unintentionally), so you might want to ask him that question.

Three points:

1. Failure to accidentally kill someone is not indicative of safe use. I would be more likely to consider it luck. After all, they shoot guns in the air in the Middle East to celebrate. I assume the number killed by falling rounds is limited, or it wouldn't be done. It's still incredibly stupid.
2. My coworker is in a club of 10 or 12 who have these things. They shoot them, but no one outside the group seems to know where. This part of Virginia is rural, but not that rural.
3. I did ask, and the response was not pretty. Since we were at work and starting a tiff can be career limiting, I dropped it.

Originally Posted by Semo '75 ...

You are right that crazy with six rounds is different from crazy with thirty. Nonetheless, high-capacity magazines are used so rarely in crimes that I see it as a non-issue. I maintain that the bigger issue here has nothing to do with the size of the magazines he used. Crazy with six rounds would still have been horrific.

While agreeing that shooting is bad, mass shooting is REALLY bad. Wen Cho Lee, the Virginia Tech shooter, just brought extra mags and two guns, so high capacity isn't necessary to kill many people. But then, when is it? If the magazines have no purpose other than shooting many people ... or cows ... or whatever, let's agree to take them off the market. They obviously only have application in a military setting.

Originally Posted by Semo '75 ...

According to the investigating authority, Loughner made some number of death threats to unspecified individuals, which the police had investigated. Why was he never charged? Did the police simply think that he was a harmless kook? If they thought he was crazy, why didn't they petition the court to force him to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, which would have been relatively easy under the current Arizona law?

Wen Cho Lee was actually in the system and still got guns. The problem is all the boo-hooing that it takes to long and its too hard, so make the process fast and easy ... and sloppy.

Originally Posted by Semo '75 ...

It's obvious that the availability of high-capacity magazines allowed him to kill more people, what's not obvious is that their lack of availability would have stopped him. A conviction for making death threats might have. A psychiatric evaluation might have.

Like I mentioned above, the attitude of the authorities sets the tone. In New York, he would never have been allowed to get guns or ammo. In Arizona or Virginia, different story.

Originally Posted by RyanJH

I try to avoid throwing out data because of the source, because it supports an argument contrary to a position I currently hold or because it supports a position held by an organization I don't agree with.

Its harder to do your own homework and looking through peer reviewed journals, while providing better data for decisions, is, quite frankly, a struggle. But it really is the only way to get to an informed decision. I don't count sensational media stories about single occurrences, even if there are multiple such stories, as sufficient evidence for a to take a stand on a national policy decision.

Note that my response was to accept Hemenway's criticism of Kleck's work and adjust Kleck's conclusions by Hemenway's recommended numbers. It still did not provide evidence supporting a hypothesis that there are net positive benefits to increased gun controls or banning guns. Thus I had no need to get into the gory details of attempting validate one data set over another.

Even after this concession, Eric implied that Kleck shouldn't even be considered. For the sake of discussion, I accepted that and offered a report to the CDC for consideration.

My problem with gun-related data of any kind is the seemingly infinite ability of the NRA to suppress the keeping of data and the suppression of any analysis of what exists that may be contrary to their POV. Their power is breathtaking. So anything produced by an ally, to say nothing of someone who has actually been paid by them, is suspicious by definition.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

My problem with gun-related data of any kind is the seemingly infinite ability of the NRA to suppress the keeping of data and the suppression of any analysis of what exists that may be contrary to their POV. Their power is breathtaking. So anything produced by an ally, to say nothing of someone who has actually been paid by them, is suspicious by definition.

Hmm.. wouldn't Occam's Razor eventually start to hint that maybe, rather than an omnipotent Evil Conspiracy thoroughly suppressing all this hypothetical data and analysis, reality simply has a pro-gun bias?

That the NRA likes all the reputable studies out there because... all the reputable studies out there keep coming to the conclusion that the NRA is right?

I know I'd certainly be happy with researchers in general if I were them.