The Dishonest Gun-Control Debate

[JR2ATN]

Great article, spot on!

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/347263/dishonest-gun-control-debate

 

 

 Liberals love to talk about the “root causes” of crime and social dysfunction, except when the root cause is liberalism, in which case it’s, “Oh, look! A scary-looking squirrel gun!”

 

[Guest nra37922]

We need to get the topic changed from Gun Control to Crime Control and deal with the criminal element and leave the law abiding alone.....

[RobertNashville]

I know a lot of folks here don't like Glenn Beck but his book (written in large part with John Lott) "Control" is excellent as a resource.  I HIGHLY recommend it.  Paperback for about $10 and pretty much destroys every singly argument posed the gun-haters as well as the simply ill-informed, miss--informed and totally ignorant.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Great article, spot on!

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/347263/dishonest-gun-control-debate

 

 Liberals love to talk about the “root causes” of crime and social dysfunction, except when the root cause is liberalism, in which case it’s, “Oh, look! A scary-looking squirrel gun!”

 

The root cause of crime is liberalism.

[1pointofview]

I just read the book freakonomics and reading superfreakonomics now. Plan on reading control as soon as i finish. I have heard some excerpts from the book control and look forward to getting it


I will say in freakonomics, they had a few gun related stats. They pointed out how gun buy backs are stupid and a complete statistical waste of time. That the parent that will let their child go to suzy's house who has a pool, but will not let their kid go to johny's house because his parents have a gun in the house are 100x more likely to die of an accidental drowning than an accidental shooting.

Suprisingly, they blame the media and emotion for skewing the narrative. Pointing out their tendencies of reporting on anything that will evoke emotion over what is rational. ThAt is why books like control are important because people need to know how to respond when co fronted with hyperbole anti gun arguments Edited May 5, 2013 by 1pointofview

[jcoosi]

You cant argue with a brick wall and get anywhere. They are all for debate until you replace their emotions with facts and logic.
Then you become a racist, homophobic, gun toting, baby killing, environmnet depleting, bible thumping, ring wing extermist.

[DaveTN]

These arguments and statistics are non-sense on both sides. Do guns laws impact crimes rates? No, look at the top 10 cities with the highest crime rates. You will see cities in states with strict gun laws and cities in states with liberal gun laws.

 

 

[RobertNashville]

Have you read More Guns Less Crime?  Have you studied the research?

I've taken two graduate level statistics courses (not to mention the undergraduate ones) and I've read and I've had the opportunity to talk with John Lott in person. His work seems more than sound to me.  That said and much more importantly, much smarter men that I have reviewed his research and found it sound and most of those with an opposing view hold that view because doing otherwise doesn't support their opinions about guns (they are no longer even willing to debate him in public because they can't discredit his work).

 

Rates of violent crime go down as citizens are allowed to arm and protect themselves...cities with the most restrictive gun control laws are the cities that consistently have the highest rates of violent crime.

[Spiffy]

We need to get the topic changed from Gun Control to Crime Control and deal with the criminal element and leave the law abiding alone.....

 

Remember how the Omnibus Crime Bill of 1994 went..............

[Spiffy]

I just read the book freakonomics and reading superfreakonomics now. Plan on reading control as soon as i finish. I have heard some excerpts from the book control and look forward to getting it


I will say in freakonomics, they had a few gun related stats. They pointed out how gun buy backs are stupid and a complete statistical waste of time. That the parent that will let their child go to suzy's house who has a pool, but will not let their kid go to johny's house because his parents have a gun in the house are 100x more likely to die of an accidental drowning than an accidental shooting.

Suprisingly, they blame the media and emotion for skewing the narrative. Pointing out their tendencies of reporting on anything that will evoke emotion over what is rational. ThAt is why books like control are important because people need to know how to respond when co fronted with hyperbole anti gun arguments

 

Yes because a throat punch or stabbing them in the face doesn't work out too well.

[East_TN_Patriot]

I know a lot of folks here don't like Glenn Beck but his book (written in large part with John Lott) "Control" is excellent as a resource.  I HIGHLY recommend it.  Paperback for about $10 and pretty much destroys every singly argument posed the gun-haters as well as the simply ill-informed, miss--informed and totally ignorant.

I guess I'll speak blasphemy and say that Lott's "more guns less crime" thesis is largely incorrect.  The overwhelming majority of research shows that gun laws don't prevent gun crime, and CCW laws don't decrease crime to any significant degree.  This is why I think economists should stay out of social science and stick to economics.  That said, his book "The Bias Against Guns" is a decent read.  To see that he's teamed up with Glenn Beck likely means he has little objectivity, but is more concerned with selling books than doing scholarly research, which is what we need more of.

 

EDIT:

Since I'll get the question, here is why I say that Lott's thesis is incorrect.  First, dozens of studies have shown that CCW laws do not have a statistically significant impact on crime.  Part of what Lott did was catch data during a period of time when gun violence made a dramatic and unexpected decline after a few years of  an unexpected and dramatic increase in gun violence.  The passage of CCW laws happened to coincide with a unique trend in violent crime.  Second, the very nature of gun violence is not something that can be easily impacted by CCW laws.  CCW laws generally provide individuals the ability to protect themselves and deter random acts of violence.  The vast majority of gun crimes are not random acts of violence, but are committed between people who know each other, and many times are criminals themselves engaged in gang and drug violence.If gun possession itself was a deterrent, then gang killings would be extremely rare since virtually all of them are armed all the time and everyone knows it.  Other gun crimes are perpetrated by one who is known by the victim and is the outcome of some sort of interpersonal dispute where a CCW would have little, if any, impact on the outcome of the incident.  If two drunk brothers get into a fight or a person comes home early and finds their spouse/significant other in bed with their best friend, CCW laws are not going to have any significant impact in those cases.

Clearly, gun ownership does deter crime to a certain extent, but it doesn't require "more guns" to have that deterrent effect.  The very possibility that anyone *could* be armed is enough for most criminals who carry out random crimes to be very cautious about who or where they target.  With all of that said, we also know that gun control laws do not have any statistically significant impact on gun violence either.  

Edited June 1, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot

[Guest ThePunisher]

I bet CCW laws help prevent innocent victims from becoming a statistic of murder, rape, home invasion robbery. Edited June 1, 2013 by ThePunisher

[mikegideon]

The root cause of crime is liberalism.

 

You nailed it, Grasshopper :)

[mikegideon]

Yes because a throat punch or stabbing them in the face doesn't work out too well.

 

I think it would work extremely well. It's just illegal. :)

[Guest nra37922]

....Clearly, gun ownership does deter crime to a certain extent, but it doesn't require "more guns" to have that deterrent effect.  The very possibility that anyone *could* be armed is enough for most criminals who carry out random crimes to be very cautious about who or where they target.  With all of that said, we also know that gun control laws do not have any statistically significant impact on gun violence either.  

Agree to a point.  If the intent is to actually lower crime than may I suggest not only should the law abiding be armed but that criminals should be put away for a LONG time and actually do some Hard labor.

[East_TN_Patriot]

I bet CCW laws help prevent innocent victims from becoming a statistic of murder, rape, home invasion robbery.

Only in cases of random crime.  Again, most people are murdered and raped by people they know.  CCW laws should have very little, if any, impact on home invasion because the vast majority of states have allowed possession of firearms in your own home for decades.  Where Lott found his most "convincing" data for CCW laws was in Florida.  If his thesis holds true, then we would see similar declines in crime everywhere a CCW law was passed.  It just doesn't happen.
 

Agree to a point.  If the intent is to actually lower crime than may I suggest not only should the law abiding be armed but that criminals should be put away for a LONG time and actually do some Hard labor.

Most violent criminals have been put away for long sentences.  Since the 1980s the United States has embarked on a policy of very strict punishments that include mandatory minimum sentences, three-strikes laws, and enhanced penalties for use of firearms.  We have put so many people in prison that we have the highest incarceration rate in the entire world.  Now, hard labor is another issue.  Contrary to what most people believe, prisons are terrible places and our overuse of them has contributed to the violent street crime and gang violence we see today.  Perhaps busting rocks every day for 25 years would be a deterrent, perhaps not.  I suspect if the constant threat of prison rape, brutality, and being shanked at any given moment isn't deterrence enough, then hard labor wouldn't be either.  Of course, that is a subjective opinion.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

There is and has been no need for a gun control debate since the 2nd Amendment. The only control needs to be

on people who approach law making with emotions. Those people need to be removed from any argument.

[Worriedman]

Since the 1980s the United States has embarked on a policy of very strict punishments that include mandatory minimum sentences, three-strikes laws, and enhanced penalties for use of firearms.

 

What is the percentage of charging those who use weapons in the commission of a felony with the extra crime?

[mikegideon]

What is the percentage of charging those who use weapons in the commission of a felony with the extra crime?

 

I don't think they're interested in charging criminals. They're interested in turning US into criminals.

[Dennis1209]

Here's how it actually is...

 

You can make the most rational argument, be absolutely correct with proof positive, with actual accurate surveys, polls and Constitutional laws with history...

 

But, that doesn't dissuade the powers that be from "people control" and an agenda of socialism / sharia law.

 

The 2nd Amendment protects the 1st, look at where we're headed with hate speech, the Muslims and the suppression of our freedoms! All in the name of political correctness and the "new" world order.

[Worriedman]

I don't think they're interested in charging criminals. They're interested in turning US into criminals.

I concur, using history that I can remember in West TN, the lady that shot her husband in the back and killed him (Mary Winkler) was NOT charged with the additional crime of using a firearm in the commission of a felony, even though she was convicted of felony murder.

I suspect that the percentage of those who use a weapon in the commission of a felony are charged with the extra crime about as often as felons who attempt to purchase weapons are charged for that.

Edited June 2, 2013 by Worriedman

[Worriedman]

 To see that he's teamed up with Glenn Beck likely means he has little objectivity, but is more concerned with selling books than doing scholarly research, which is what we need more of.

 

 

Realistically, aren't most individuals who write and promote books trying to sell books, or an idea or a belief system?  Would anyone so invested in attempting to gain remuneration for advocating their particular beliefs be so judged?  Because Mr. Lott is trying to make a living espousing a type of belief, does that completely negate his objectivity?

Edited June 2, 2013 by Worriedman

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You nailed it, Grasshopper :)

Thank you big ears! :D

[East_TN_Patriot]

What is the percentage of charging those who use weapons in the commission of a felony with the extra crime?

I don't know the answer to that and I have never seen any data on it.  What I do know is that it's totally up to the prosecutor to seek the enhanced penalties and many times they do not.  In my police days, what the prosecutor would do is use it as a plea-bargaining tool.  If they would accept a plea deal, they would not tack on the 10-20-Life penalty or whatever was potentially on the table.  

Regardless, the length of the average prison term is much higher today than in the early 1980s.  According to the US Department of Justice, in 1990-1999 the average prison sentence was 8 years, but by 2010 the average prison sentence was 25 years.  

[Worriedman]

Regardless, the length of the average prison term is much higher today than in the early 1980s.  According to the US Department of Justice, in 1990-1999 the average prison sentence was 8 years, but by 2010 the average prison sentence was 25 years.  

 

Somebody is making a good living off of that. I bet there are a lot more prison beds now than in the 80's as well.  More prosecutors, more defense attorneys too I would presume.

Crime is a Big Business it seems.

Edited June 2, 2013 by Worriedman