The case against guns

[Blind groper]

On knives versus hand guns.

Seth, who apparently is very fond of bullshit, tried to claim that knives are more dangerous than hand guns. The numbers tell a different story.

When I tried to look up stabbing murders, I found a pair of unbelievable numbers. Over 3 million stabbings per year, and only 2,000 deaths from stabbings. That is, in the USA, there were 1500 stabbings for every stabbing death.

Because this seemed so weird to me, I quoted the British figure, which was only 400 stabbings for every stabbing death.

Either way, stabbings are low risk relative to hand gun risk, in which every 5 shootings results in a death. Since 50% of all murders in the USA are done with hand guns, and only one eighth with a knife, I have to cry bullshit on Seth's claim.

[Daedalus]

You misunderstand. The "report" is the bogus Harvard study cited by BG as refuting Lott's work. I guess if BG wants to he can post the link.

No no, I asked you a page ago what evidence you can cite to support your assertion that "More guns = less crime." You still haven't told me what, if any you have.

[Blind groper]

Daedalus

I can tell you Seth's evidence. It resides in the writings of Lott and Kleck. In fact, Lott wrote a book by that name. The book is an unabashed attempt to suck up to the NRA and the gun nutters of America. As such, it sold a hell of a lot of copies to NRA members and to gun nutters, and made Lott into a rich man.

Lott claims the data comes from a survey he carried out. The problem is that others have carried out surveys of the same type, and got opposite results. In addition, other researchers were unable to find Lott's raw data, were told by both Lott's research assistants and by Lott's superiors that they knew nothing of any such survey. Since it made Lott rich, these facts tend to make any intelligent person very, very suspicious, and doubt whether the survey data Lott quotes were real, rather than fictional.

[Seth]

You misunderstand. The "report" is the bogus Harvard study cited by BG as refuting Lott's work. I guess if BG wants to he can post the link.

No no, I asked you a page ago what evidence you can cite to support your assertion that "More guns = less crime." You still haven't told me what, if any you have.

Sure I did. "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott. Available at Amazon.com

[Daedalus]

You misunderstand. The "report" is the bogus Harvard study cited by BG as refuting Lott's work. I guess if BG wants to he can post the link.

No no, I asked you a page ago what evidence you can cite to support your assertion that "More guns = less crime." You still haven't told me what, if any you have.

Sure I did. "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott. Available at Amazon.com

I've read it. The opinions and warped statistics of one nut is not a body of evidence, anymore than, 'The Protocols of The Learned Elders of Zion' is a resource to justify anti-Semitism.

[Seth]

You misunderstand. The "report" is the bogus Harvard study cited by BG as refuting Lott's work. I guess if BG wants to he can post the link.

No no, I asked you a page ago what evidence you can cite to support your assertion that "More guns = less crime." You still haven't told me what, if any you have.

Sure I did. "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott. Available at Amazon.com

I've read it. The opinions and warped statistics of one nut is not a body of evidence, anymore than, 'The Protocols of The Learned Elders of Zion' is a resource to justify anti-Semitism.

So, where's your peer-reviewed paper pointing out the specific flaws in Lott's work pray tell? More importantly, where's your nationwide county-by-county study of DGUs which rebuts or refutes his work? And where is your rebuttal to the other professionals who have done studies on the issue, like the FBI?

I find it amusing that you think that you're smarter than the combined legislatures of 40 states who all agree with the basic principle of more guns (in the hands of law abiding citizens) results in less crime. And then there's the federal court which specifically ruled that Illinois' complete ban on carrying of firearms in public is UNCONSTITUTIONAL by saying, in part, (paraphrased) that the legislatures of 49 other states who have acknowledged (to one extent or another) the right of citizens to be armed for self defense cannot all be wrong, and that therefore it is Illinois that is the outlier that must be brought to heel.

I'll stick with the judgment of all those tens of thousands of elected representatives in all 50 states rather than your ill-informed punditry.

I assume that like BG, you discount any and all evidence that runs counter to your pre-determined conclusion and biases?

[Daedalus]

You misunderstand. The "report" is the bogus Harvard study cited by BG as refuting Lott's work. I guess if BG wants to he can post the link.

No no, I asked you a page ago what evidence you can cite to support your assertion that "More guns = less crime." You still haven't told me what, if any you have.

Sure I did. "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott. Available at Amazon.com

I've read it. The opinions and warped statistics of one nut is not a body of evidence, anymore than, 'The Protocols of The Learned Elders of Zion' is a resource to justify anti-Semitism.

So, where's your peer-reviewed paper pointing out the specific flaws in Lott's work pray tell? More importantly, where's your nationwide county-by-county study of DGUs which rebuts or refutes his work? And where is your rebuttal to the other professionals who have done studies on the issue, like the FBI?

I find it amusing that you think that you're smarter than the combined legislatures of 40 states who all agree with the basic principle of more guns (in the hands of law abiding citizens) results in less crime. And then there's the federal court which specifically ruled that Illinois' complete ban on carrying of firearms in public is UNCONSTITUTIONAL by saying, in part, (paraphrased) that the legislatures of 49 other states who have acknowledged (to one extent or another) the right of citizens to be armed for self defense cannot all be wrong, and that therefore it is Illinois that is the outlier that must be brought to heel.

I'll stick with the judgment of all those tens of thousands of elected representatives in all 50 states rather than your ill-informed punditry.

I assume that like BG, you discount any and all evidence that runs counter to your pre-determined conclusion and biases?

Lott is the one making an extraordinary and unfounded claim, which he fails to properly support. I have no burden to refute a madman's lies.

I should mention before you get too far ahead of yourself though, that I'm far from anti-gun. I own several, a P228, 92FS, and a Dragunov SVD. What I'm against are people who lie and bullshit on either side of the debate, people like Lott, or those who think gun control as it exists works. Don't assume that because I reject a lunatic like Lott, that I fit into the category of banning guns a la Illinois.

[Blind groper]

http://www.amazon.com/Private-Public-He ... 0472031627

As you can see from the reference above, Lott is not the only one who has written a book on this subject. Prof. Hemenway has shown that widespread gun ownership is harmful to American society, rather than reducing crime.

[Seth]

http://www.amazon.com/Private-Public-He ... 0472031627

As you can see from the reference above, Lott is not the only one who has written a book on this subject. Prof. Hemenway has shown that widespread gun ownership is harmful to American society, rather than reducing crime.

Collectivist bilge that disrespects individual rights.

[Daedalus]

http://www.amazon.com/Private-Public-He ... 0472031627

As you can see from the reference above, Lott is not the only one who has written a book on this subject. Prof. Hemenway has shown that widespread gun ownership is harmful to American society, rather than reducing crime.

Collectivist bilge that disrespects individual rights.

Thinking like that is what's wrong with society, and what makes gun owners look like lunatics.

[Tero]

300 000 alpha males and a few of their wimmin' will be armed in Illinois at movies, dinner, shopping and sports events about a year from now. Good thing I don't go to movies there. The newness has worn off in MO.

[Seth]

http://www.amazon.com/Private-Public-He ... 0472031627

As you can see from the reference above, Lott is not the only one who has written a book on this subject. Prof. Hemenway has shown that widespread gun ownership is harmful to American society, rather than reducing crime.

Collectivist bilge that disrespects individual rights.

Thinking like that is what's wrong with society, and what makes gun owners look like lunatics.

What? Declaring that individual rights are important and that socialist collectivism is inherently evil?

Nope. It's the notion that MY right (and every other persons right) to personal safety is outweighed by any silly collectivist argument that "society" would be better off if it disrespected my individual rights that's insane. I refuse to be reduced to a statistic by Marxist fuckwits and socialist swine... like Hemenway et al.

[Seth]

300 000 alpha males and a few of their wimmin' will be armed in Illinois at movies, dinner, shopping and sports events about a year from now. Good thing I don't go to movies there. The newness has worn off in MO.

And violent crime will drop.

[Daedalus]

http://www.amazon.com/Private-Public-He ... 0472031627

As you can see from the reference above, Lott is not the only one who has written a book on this subject. Prof. Hemenway has shown that widespread gun ownership is harmful to American society, rather than reducing crime.

Collectivist bilge that disrespects individual rights.

Thinking like that is what's wrong with society, and what makes gun owners look like lunatics.

What? Declaring that individual rights are important and that socialist collectivism is inherently evil?

Nope. It's the notion that MY right (and every other persons right) to personal safety is outweighed by any silly collectivist argument that "society" would be better off if it disrespected my individual rights that's insane. I refuse to be reduced to a statistic by Marxist fuckwits and socialist swine... like Hemenway et al.

No, resorting to meaningless rhetoric in service of a silly point. The irony is that when not actually confronted with the stereotype you expect, you appear to be unable to actually support your views.

[Tero]

Gun-rights advocates interpret “the people” to mean every person. This is called the “individual right” view of the Second Amendment and it wasn’t until 2008, by a 5-4 split decision that the Supreme Court took the “individual right” approach to the Second Amendment in a case called Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). Until this decision, the Second Amendment was seen as a collective right.

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia-civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

http://josephwiltse.com/2013/01/18/381/

You lose. I'll get my presidents to change SCOTUS so they can interpret the constitution better.