A LITTLE GUN HISTORY!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KD6HDX @ Aug 14 2007, 08:05 PM) [snapback]495712[/snapback]</div>

The Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.

The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.

There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.

"What the subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear -- and long-lost proof that the Second Amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for the protection of himself, his family, and his freedom." - Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Preface, "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms"

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

 

For anyone with questions on the Second Amendment, I highly recommend this video, this is part 1 of 3, I recommend watching all 3 parts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLG0GMgZAYA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 14 2007, 02:52 PM) [snapback]495634[/snapback]</div>

I think the expectation was that you would provide a primary source. Failing that, could you point to the footnotes in Dr. Lott's book that support the claim? HINT: I'm not going to read the guy's whole book to find out if you've got a point or not.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(samiam @ Aug 15 2007, 09:53 AM) [snapback]495707[/snapback]</div>

Yes, Australian and NZ are similar laws. It is the owner who is registered, but I also think that, here, the number of firearms that owner holds is also restricted - not being a registered shooter, I do not know all the rules. Our police are armed, although most have never used their weapons apart from training on the range. A lot of people would like them to be like NZ and UK police, unarmed, as they really do not need the guns. There has been some talk in Victoria about taking to police weapons away, as there have been a number of police shootings in that state, but doubt that it will happen. Recently, some tasers have been issued to NSW police to replace their firearms, but it is a trial only at this stage.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pogo @ Aug 14 2007, 09:54 PM) [snapback]495780[/snapback]</div>

Reading is good for you. You might actually learn something.

Failing that, try Google. There are links to plenty of Dr. Lott's studies out there. In fact, the link I provided supports what I originally stated, which you would have known if you would have bothered to follow it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 14 2007, 09:00 PM) [snapback]495788[/snapback]</div>

I didn't need to read Dr. Lott's book or studies. All I have to do is simply look at the raw crime statistics for a given state and see that the numbers go up and down. They do not decrease at a constant rate of 2 to 3 % every year after a concealed carry law is passed. He may be able to cherry pick some numbers for a few years to get the data for his study, but it isn't a uniform trend. In fact all you need to do is show one instance where it doesn't fit to prove his theory wrong.

Like I said, show me the numbers, I showed you that Florida does not fit his theory. Michigan doesn't either, Vermont, which doesn't even require a permit and allows almost anyone to carry a concealed weapon doesn't fit it either. Show me one state that does. You can find the crime statistics from 1960 to 2005 for all 50 states at the following link. I'll add a bit of difficulty though, show me a 5 year trend.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 14 2007, 07:00 PM) [snapback]495788[/snapback]</div>

Indeed there are plenty of Lott's studies out there -- what is lacking is any reason to believe he's an authority on the topic. Yes, I know that he's anti gun control, and anti abortion, and he has a PHd in economics (I have a degree in electrical engineering -- it hardly makes me an authority on either topic.) The one link I found that pointed to the source of his data, unfortunately required a registration. Let me put it another way -- although I read quite a bit, and have learned much from it, I'm not spending money to read this guy's book. As jhinton points out, there's a difference between data and opinion. What we used to say is "if you don't have data, then all you've got is an opinion". The corollary was that opinions are like a certain part of the body -- "everybody's got one, and they all stink".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Aug 14 2007, 10:16 PM) [snapback]495807[/snapback]</div>

Fact: In the 31 states that now have "concealed right to carry" laws, murders were down, on average, by 8.5 percent.

Fact: Rapes were down 5 percent and serious assaults by 7 percent.

Fact: In cities with populations of more than 250,000, murder rates dropped after the passage of such laws by an average of 13.5 percent.

Sources: Ian Katz, "'Gun Law' Cuts Crime Rate, US Study Finds," Guardian, August 3, 1996, and Dennis Cauchon, "Study: Weapons Laws Deter Crime: Fewer Rapes, Murders Found Where Concealed Guns Legal," USA Today, August 2, 1996.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pogo @ Aug 14 2007, 10:48 PM) [snapback]495847[/snapback]</div>

A couple of things:

1. Don't complain if I provide a link to a research paper to you and you don't feel like registering for free.

2. Libraries loan books for free. You can find Dr. Lott's books in just about all of them.

3. Dr. Lott is a recognized expert on the relationship between guns and crime. He has published over 90 articles in peer-reviewed academic journals related to his research areas, and has authored five books, including "More Guns, Less Crime", "The Bias Against Guns", and "Freedomnomics".

4. Lott presents statistical evidence for the claim that allowing adults to carry concealed weapons significantly reduces crime in America. He supports this position by an exhaustive tabulation of various social and economic data from census and other population surveys of individual United States counties in different years, which he fits into a large multifactorial mathematical model of crime rate. His published results generally show a reduction in violent crime associated with the adoption by states of laws allowing the general adult population to freely carry concealed weapons.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 14 2007, 10:12 PM) [snapback]495863[/snapback]</div>

So you couldn't find any data to support your cause? All I asked for is one state that has shown an immediate and continual downward trend of murders, rape, and robberies starting the year after a concealed carry law is passed. If 31 states had concealed right to carry laws in 1996 you should be able to show me 31 states that have had a steady and continued reduction in murder, rape, and robberies for 10 years now. Why can't you show me even one? I even gave you the data. Instead you give me two newspaper stories from 11 years ago.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Aug 14 2007, 07:16 PM) [snapback]495807[/snapback]</div>

Do you feel the same about GW?

Wildkow

 

This question seems to lend itself to a common sense answer.

1) If you are better able to protect yourself the occurrence of crime should go down.
2) If more guns are available it seems accidental and other shootings will go up, training can help.
3) Since more American's are "good" v. "bad" the incidence of crime should, common sensically go down and from what I have seen in the stats, since I actually looked at them, indicates a downward trend.


Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 14 2007, 10:21 PM) [snapback]495874[/snapback]</div>

I'll have to admit I'm confused. What or who is GW?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Aug 14 2007, 11:21 PM) [snapback]495872[/snapback]</div>

As I originally stated, and then provided links to several studies that supported my position, in states where concealed carry laws have been passed, crime has gone down. If you want to debate the veracity of those studies, then feel free to do so. However, all of them have been published in peer-reviewed journals.

Just to satisfy your curiosity, please point your browser over to http://home.pacbell.net/rsdotson/statistic...carrystates.htm, where you will find a "Comparison of Crime Rates for States that Allowed Concealed Carry of Handguns in 1994 versus those that Did Not". These statistics were compiled from 1994 Uniform Crime Reports/FBI. I'm sure that you'll complain that the data is several years old, but it certainly shows that states that allow people to carry concealed handguns are more safe than those that don't.

And, by the way, the cops agree. A 2001 survey by the National Association of Chiefs of Police found that 62 percent of 23,113 chiefs and sheriffs surveyed favor a national system allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms. Source: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Pag...L20011130c.html

Regardless of the interpretation of statistics, the trend in the United States has been towards greater permissiveness of concealed carry. Anecdotally, if concealed carry laws didn't work, then 48 states would not allow some form of concealed carry.

The bottom line is, if you don't like guns, then don't carry one, but don't try to take mine away from me.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 14 2007, 10:43 PM) [snapback]495893[/snapback]</div>

1st I will readily admit that crime rates in general have fallen since there peak in about 1993 to 1994. However, that was not Swanny's claim. His claim was "For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent." That is a very bold claim which I've seen no evidence for.

I would use Swanny's home state of OH but it only passed a concealed carry law in 2004. It is not statistically significant to use one year's date but even then it doesn't fit his pattern. In 2004 there were 517 murders and in 2005 there where 585. So much for the 3% decline in murders.

But lets take his neighboring state of Kentucky which passed its concealed carry law in 1996

Year-----Murders------Rapes-----Robbery-------Assault
1996------228----------1,230------3,643----------7,347
1997------228----------1,304------3,546----------7,308
1998------182----------1,153------2,968----------6,877
1999------203----------1,148------3,104----------7,757
2000------193----------1,091------3,256----------7,363
2001------181----------1,051------3,269----------6,009
2002------191----------1,087------3,131----------6,692
2003------181----------1,124------3,224----------5,703
2004------236----------1,238------3,268----------5,410
2005------190----------1,055------3,690----------5,833

Now if Swanny's formula was right: Concealed Handgun Law = 3% reduction in murders; 2% reduction in Rape; 3% reduction in robberies Then by 2005 you should have the following:

Murders:-------145
Rapes:---------880
Robberies:---2805

2nd, even if the numbers did match up it that only shows correlation not causation. It takes a lot more that just numbers and statistics to show that one thing caused another thing. In this cause I don't even have to bother because there isn't even correlation between his theory and the numbers.

Now Swanny will not admit that his claim was wrong. He won't even try to prove that it is correct. At this point his usual tactic is distraction and changing the subject.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Aug 14 2007, 08:44 PM) [snapback]495894[/snapback]</div>

Global Warming.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 14 2007, 11:21 PM) [snapback]495924[/snapback]</div>

Ah, I thought you might be referring to George W. as in President George W. Bush.

Yes, I have the same stance on Global Warming as well, show me the numbers. But now you have attempted to change the subject instead of Swanny. <_< Any discussion of GW will have to be on a different thread. B)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Aug 14 2007, 09:21 PM) [snapback]495922[/snapback]</div>

Your analysis does not include the population growth which was about 9.7% from 1990-2000.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 14 2007, 02:52 PM) [snapback]495634[/snapback]</div>

Here is the rebuttal by the researchers that were critiqued in large part for their modeling methods. The author you cited has asked that his name be removed from the paper. The data in the study was from 1977 to 2000. It is referred to in the Ayres study as the PW paper. Most of the data showed marked decreases in crime after 1992. Shockingly, the economy was doing pretty well. It would be interesting to see data through 2007. From the Ayres paper:

"In the wake of some of the criticisms that we have leveled against the Lott
and Mustard thesis, John Lott appeared before a National Academy of Sciences
panel examining the plausibility of the more guns, less crime thesis and
presented them with a series of figures showing year-by-year estimates that
appeared to show sharp and immediate declines in crime with adoption of
concealed-carry laws. David Mustard even included these graphs in his initial
comment on the Donohue paper in the Brookings book that PW refer to
repeatedly in their current response. But Donohue privately showed Mustard as
well as the Brookings editors that the graphs were the product of coding errors
in creating the year-by-year dummies, and in the end Mustard conceded and
withdrew them from his comment on Donohue. Now PW respond to our paper
with an array of regressions that purport to support their thesis, but again are
utterly flawed by similar coding errors. We previously made no mention of the
initial National Academy of Sciences/Brookings comment error, since we know
how easy it is to make mistakes in doing this work. But for the second time
Lott and coauthors have put into the public domain flawed regression results
that happen to support their thesis, even though their results disappear when
corrected. Claiming we misread our results in the face of such obvious
evidence to the contrary and repeatedly bringing erroneous data into the public
debate starts suggesting a pattern of behavior that is unlikely to engender
support for the Lott and Mustard hypothesis. We feel confident concluding that
we have indeed shot down the more guns, less crime hypothesis. Perhaps
PW can now assist in laying it to rest."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KD6HDX @ Aug 14 2007, 05:05 PM) [snapback]495712[/snapback]</div>

The right was never questioned to be a right for individual to own guns until the 20th century; then some proposed that the phrase in the Second Amendment referred to the individual state's rights to have a state National Guard type of force. Today, most legal scholars, including the liberal Lawrence Tribe, Con Law Prof at Harvard, view the original intent of the Second Amendment as securing the right for individual citizens (they differ on whether it should apply that way now, but it is clearly the framer's intent that it be an individual right).

Part of the reason is the phrase "the people" which, in the Constitution, means the people, not the states. So the phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Those are two separate clauses, with two separate meanings. Compare the use of the phrase "the people" and "State" in the 4th Amendment, and Amendments 9, 10, and 15. Your governor isn't the only one in your state to have freedom of speech. He isn't the only one who is guaranteed to have all other rights not enumerated in the Constitution ... the people are.

There is also an established doctrine of the unorganized militia, which means every citizen of majority age, in each state. Most states have such an unorganized militia, and you are a part of it if you are a law abiding citizen of that state.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Aug 14 2007, 09:21 PM) [snapback]495922[/snapback]</div>

Lott's statistics compare rates as a percentage of the population, while you are looking at raw numbers. So you would have to put in the population rates for each year. Then, to be fair, I think you would have to compare KY to a state with similar population growth but without a CCW law.

Statistics is a complicated field, and advocates often cherry pick stats to support their side. In the gun control debate, I posted four examples of how the anti-gun and pro-gun people cherry pick stats at Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics including a problem with the stats from John Lott's study on mass killings (the post cites an article by "The Numbers Guy" on the Wall Street Journal, and uses his examples).

Your last sentence is a "tell" in that you admit that, no matter the statistic, you are unlikely to change your view. That's helpful in debate to know that we are both probably at the same point: I am loathe to sacrifice basic civil rights for any reason, and you are (evidently) loathe to considering sanctioning individual gun ownership, even if it is a basic civil right.