Gun banners won't put their money where their mouth is.

It does not take a degree in criminology to be able to critique research. And an accountant would probably have a better understanding of statistics than an obvious hack like Lott

 

Why don’t you prove your point - that these people are attacking Lott because of (pick a reason) rather than looking at the critiques they have written and addressing those points

 

I did, their critiques are opinions from people who have no expertise on the subject. a staff writer who used to fluff an anti gun group for example.

 

yeah a PhD in economics (which you fluff when it's david hemenway who wants people to assume he's a medical doctor) means nothing compared to a guy who studied finance

 

I am not familiar with their gun policy, but any positive, or negative effect would take much longer than 2 years. If its true that gun ownership increased six fold in 4 yrs, then murder rates will likely go up as more guns end up in wrong hands.

PS. Gun ownership did not increase fix fold, it tripled, and now Brazilians have 2.2 million firearms in a nation of 215 million, so its still fairly rare for them to own guns

 

well the US saw 100 million more guns from 93-2023 and most of them were semi auto handguns, rifles and shotguns and the rate of violent crime decreased

 

I was reading right up until the point when you described me as being against any gun regulations.

That is not true because I am part of that 80%.

There is a middle ground you know?

What makes you think the US is so different from other countries that started by banning small amounts and banned and banned and banned more until you basically cannot own the most simple firearm without jumping through major government hoops?

 

" as long as you can still own a single shot firearm, they're not really banned "

Never mind the fact that you have to jump through a million government hoops and have a psychological background check and an FBI background check and the cops can come in your house whenever they want and check to see how you store them and you're not allowed to use them for self-defense.....

Not to mention the plethora of fees that shall be associated with such a thing

 

So you are not against all regulations: universal background checks; registration or licensing; safe storage laws; Red Flag laws?
It is only the banning of any particular gun, that you are against?

 

I am not against background checks.
I am not against all regulations. I am against some regulations that only serve to stifle legal ownership.

I think the most useless thing in the world for home defense is a gun that is locked up and unloaded. To be useful for home defense it must be loaded and nearby

 

UBCs are ineffective and unenforceable:


In the 2010 report "Summary of Select Firearms Violence Prevention Strategies" the DOJ noted that “universal” background checks can’t be effective without a reduction in the illegal sources of guns to criminals and can’t be enforced without comprehensive firearm registration.
This BJS study shows us where criminals get their guns. About 23% come from families and straw purchases. 43% come from the black market, defined as Illegal sources of firearms that include markets for stolen goods, middlemen for stolen goods, criminals or criminal enterprises, or individuals or groups involved in sales of illegal drugs.6.4% come from theft. 11.5% were found at the scene of a crime or brought to the crime by another criminal.
0.8% came from gun shows. There's no percentage shown for sales from good guys to bad guys.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf
What does a UBC do to prevent criminals from getting guns?

Licensing an individual Constitutional right is unconstitutional: see Murdoch v Pennsylvania and Watchtower v Village of Stratton.
Registration can't even be enforced against prohibited persons and is a necessary precursor to successful confiscation. It doesn't benefit the gun owner is any way. Safe storage I'm 100% in favor of; safe storage laws violate the Second Amendment (see Heller) and can't be enforced unless after the fact.

Red flag laws typically violate due process; the respondent of a red flag case can be declared sufficiently mentally ill to be a danger to himself and others without being interviewed or a single mental health professional being involved in the process. In the latest state Red Flag law, in Michigan, the law state's that if the respondent threatens violence with a knife that his guns can be taken away, but he's still legally allowed to possess and purchase any number of knives.

I'm against the banning of any class of firearms in common use for lawful purpose. I'm against any unconstitutional, ineffective and unenforceable law, regardless of scope.

 

First, you left out the word "universal," from your statement about background checks. Without that word, your support of this, doesn't mean much.

There is an inconsistency, in your home defense theory. A gun could be safely stored, and still retrieved in under a minute, from a gun safe, for example. If you are saying that this is too long, it seems you are expecting a scenario of facing near instantaneous and overwhelming force, crashing through your door, without notice. While this seems rather unrealistic to me, you certainly are free to live your life that way. However, if this was what you felt you needed to be prepared for, at a moment's notice, then you would also keep that loaded weapon on your person, at all times. And, provided you did this, there would be no legal reason that your gun would need to be locked up! Safe storage laws only apply, when you do not have your gun on your person.

So, I'm saying, keep the gun in a safe, or keep it on your person, if that makes you feel safer. But you are saying what-- that it's too much trouble for you to punch in a safe combination, but nor do you think that you should need carry your weapon around, with you? As long as it's laying out somewhere, within easy reach-- like on the kitchen table, or by the t.v. remote-- that is good enough? Do you realize how ridiculous sounding, is the specificity of your supposed "need?"

In your case, since I gather there are no kids in the picture, I wouldn't have a problem with that, except it obviously could not be written into law, that way. Instead, law would say, that it must be on your person, or locked away. Since you feel it is 100% safe, just lying around, loaded, then you would be choosing to break the law, at your own risk; similar to if you did not see any cars or police around, so didn't come to a full stop at a stop sign, or wait until a light turned green. If you do something like that, you're breaking the law, but if no one sees it, and no incident arises from it, you will incur no punishment for it. That should be your understanding of your choice-- not that everyone should be allowed to leave loaded guns lying around, because this is, obviously, a very dangerous situation, in the aggregate. Some people would surely die because of this practice. But, if you're absolutely sure, none of them will be due to your gun, then all you would need do is assume that, purportedly negligible, risk: put your skin, where your mouth is. Would you find that to be a problem?

 

I myself do not own loaded guns.
But I support the right of everyone else that is legally capable of doing so to do so.

As you may know even though I've been a good boy for almost two decades now.... I still bear The Mark of Cain as far as the government is concerned.

I'm not angry or mad or bitching about it because I did that to myself. However it is legal for me to own certain muzzleloaders.

According to Florida law specifically those made on or before 1918 or a reproduction thereof.... Which includes my reproduction 1858 Remington New model army 44 caliber cap and ball muzzle loading revolver.

It sits where it always does.... Unloaded in a cabinet with the round lead ball projectile and powder and percussion caps separate.

Once in awhile children do come to my house and I make sure that my air guns and my air gun ammunition is also not accessible to them. While air guns are not legally firearms they have been known to cause fatalities and great injury before.

But let's say that I did not suffer those conditions and I did not expect random children in my home.... You're damn right they'd stay loaded.

And children only come to my home maybe once a year and that's with plenty of warning for everything to be put away out of their reach.

It's just like the water moccasin I used to own. I would never have allowed children into my house at that time ( and if I did **** which I never did and probably would never have**** that door would have been shut and locked and they would have been off limits) and the few adult friends I had were very well warned exactly what that was and not to mess with it.

When I was a boy I grew up with guns and they were not locked. But we were educated on what they were and we saw what they could do and we knew that we were not to mess with them.

I think every school ought to teach basic firearm safety to small children.
Teach them how to identify them and leave them alone and if they see another child touching them to quickly go and tell an adult.

When I was 6 years old my daddy took me out in the woods and he shot a watermelon with a 12 gauge slug to show me what a gun could do.

Perhaps all children could benefit from a demonstration of what a firearm can do?

Instead of simply teaching them that there's something to be afraid of maybe they could be taught that it's something to understand and respect?

There are four basic rules of gun safety that everyone including children should be aware of....

But I doubt more than 70% of the population is aware.

The first two are the most important and that is to assume that every gun is loaded and to keep your finger(or, your booger hook) off the trigger until you're ready to fire.

If those two rules alone were followed by everyone the number of accidental shootings would decrease by an exponential amount

 

Not only is that an appeal to authority but it is an argument without substance as you still have not proven that the analysis is in error. I have given multiple critiques by multiple people nd so far your only response has been to retreat to repeating “Lott is correct”. The man’s history speaks for itself

https://www.mediamatters.org/john-l...cher-john-lott-falls-apart-when-you-press-him

 

why is it that every profession that deals with criminals in the USA tend to be well armed? I am curious, is your anti gun advocacy funded by some anti gun group?

 

I do wonder if they go to the toilet, shower and make love with a gun strapped to them.

 

Changing the subject much?

 

That's the sort of silly thing that propaganda makes you wonder.

 

You were a smart kid but unfortunately there are some dumb arse idiot kids out there who WILL play with guns despite being warned not to

 

Even back in my day that was true for a very tiny fraction of children.

But the truth of the matter is in this day.... Children don't receive the same kind of basic education about the safe handling of firearms.

I bet you that a good percent of The accidental shootings involving firearms and children's could have been prevented if they had only received the same education I had as a child.

The difference is these days they don't really teach children like when I was a young child back in the '80s.

Like I said just teaching a child to identify a firearm and go find an adult if another child is handling that.... That could go a long way and that should be taught in every single school and every nation on the entire planet.

Can you think of any valid reason that children are not having this drummed into their head no matter where they live?

I certainly can't because children should know at least that much.

 

How could anyone conceivably be against the basic education of children say 6th grade and under, on basic safety around guns?

Realistically a child in the fifth grade should have a good grasp on the dangers of what a gun is.

Anyone who wants to reduce firearm deaths remotely whatsoever should have absolutely no problem with making sure children all around the world are taught the basic identification techniques and safety around guns.

Does anyone object to that?

If they do they're probably just one of those people that wishes that all guns were gone from civilian hands.

Even in countries where guns are strictly legally banned and they only guns present are those illegally manufactured or imported...

Every child should have a basic degree of education on what one is and to go and get an adult if another kid is playing with it.

Because the toothpaste is out of the tube and no matter what nation it is there is no guarantee that a kid could never conceivably get a hold of one

 

Australia has had 27 years and still hasn't done any good.

 

Why do the gun control advocates continually hold up the UK and Japan as having "common sense" gun laws if mass confiscation isn't the goal?
What is the quantifiable goal of gun control with regards to the homicide rate, number of mass shootings and school shootings? Can this goal be reached without mass confiscation?

In S.494, the current "universal" background check bill, the law states:
Give a gun to your brother, no background check needed.
Loan a gun to your brother, no background check needed.
Sell a gun to your bother, it's a crime if there isn't a background check.
Can you point out the "common sense" part?

Under S.494, the current "universal" background check bill, the bill states that as long as someone has a hunting or fishing license, and the loaner has no reason to suspect that the loanee is a prohibited person, the loaner can loan any firearm to that loanee without a background check for any length of time.
Can you point out the "common sense" part?

In the 2010 report "Summary of Select Firearms Violence Prevention Strategies" the DOJ noted that “universal” background checks can’t be effective without a reduction in the illegal sources of guns to criminals and can’t be enforced without comprehensive firearm registration.
This BJS study shows us where criminals get their guns. About 23% come from families and straw purchases. 43% come from the black market, defined as Illegal sources of firearms that include markets for stolen goods, middlemen for stolen goods, criminals or criminal enterprises, or individuals or groups involved in sales of illegal drugs.6.4% come from theft. 11.5% were found at the scene of a crime or brought to the crime by another criminal.
0.8% came from gun shows. There's no percentage shown for sales from good guys to bad guys.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf
What does a UBC do to prevent criminals from getting guns?

What if these proposals are unconstitutional?

Violates the Constitution. See Murdoch v Pennsylvania and Watchtower v Village of Stratton with regards to requiring a license to exercise and individual right.

Safe storage laws are unconstitutional under Heller. Red Flag laws typically violate due process, and they don't disarm those who seem an imminent threat to themselves or others. They just take guns away. Over 45% of adult female homicide victims are murdered by non-firearm means. The latest state red flag law, in Michigan, allows the government to take away the guns of someone who threatens violence with a knife, but the respondent in the Red Flag law is allowed to keep that knife and buy as many more as they wish. Common sense.

Liability insurance requirement
“Though well intentioned, such proposals misunderstand a fundamental principle of insurance—that it is designed to cover fortuitous, or accidental events; not intentional conduct. Property/casualty insurance does not and cannot cover intentional behavior such as criminal acts,” said Willem O. Rijksen, vice president of public affairs for the American Insurance Association.
According to Jimi Grande, senior vice president of federal and political affairs for the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, gun liability insurance measures would neither deter violence nor help victims.
“Liability coverage is designed to protect against accidental damages, most of which involving guns would be covered under a homeowner’s insurance policy. While some policies may provide coverage for liability stemming from the intentional use of a firearm for defensive purposes, no liability insurance product covers intentional acts of malicious violence, whether committed with a gun, a car, or any other instrument that is used as a weapon to deliberately harm people,” said Grande. “It is inconceivable that any insurer would offer such coverage, either as part of a homeowners or renters policy or on a stand-alone basis.”
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2013/04/10/287849.htm
Many home insurance companies (like Amfam) don't increase premiums for gun ownership. In fact, they may not even require homeowners to disclose whether they own a firearm or plan on owning one in the future. The only way coverage would increase is if you select the aforementioned insurance rider for your collection.
https://www.amfam.com/resources/articles/understanding-insurance/are-guns-covered-by-home-insurance

The name came well before the definition. The 1994 included some semiautomatic rifles but not other semiautomatic rifles, some semiautomatic handguns but not other semiautomatic handguns, and some semiautomatic shotguns but not other semiautomatic shotguns. The AR-15 was on the list but the Ruger Mini-14 was not, even though the AR-15 had never been used in a mass shooting but the Mini-14, with the same capabilities as the AR-15, had been used in mass shootings. A pistol with a threaded barrel was on the list but a pistol with a standard barrel was not, even though pistols with threaded barrels hadn't been used in mass shootings but standard pistols had. A semiautomatic shotgun with a pistol grip was on the list but a pump action shotgun was not, even though pump action shotguns had been used in mass shootings and semiautomatic shotguns had not. Common sense.

ARs are not marketed for mass shootings nor are they the most commonly used type of firearms in mass shootings, much less "by far" the most common choice.

 

Brazil doesn't compare to the US very well, because their organized crime is off the charts compared to ours, and some areas in Northern Brazil are most dangerous in the world. And its not just organized crime, but also do to the population in Favela's aka Ghettos, where millions of Brazilians live and hardly anyone there could afford to legally buy a gun even if they wanted to.

So, for few years laws were loosened, but gun ownership there is still miniscule compared to US.

 

I have asked this question but so far I don't believe any progressive has bothered to answer it.....

Let's say they get their assault weapons ban... Totally illegal and banned forever....

So what happens when the next series of mass shootings involve a semi-automatic pistol?

Does anyone here actually believe the Democrats would not then move to ban those as well?

All you have to do is look at how other countries went about the same thing. Which is to say.... Incrementally.

You don't just wake up one day having lost your rights, it's always a slow process justified by " it's for your own good and safety "

Fear is the political ruling classes greatest weapon against the people.

If they can keep you in a perpetual state of fear and anxiety they will get you to the point where you will practically beg them to take your rights away from you.