What on earth are you trying to say? I objectively study the evidence. That ensures full utiulisation of 'real world' evidence and the means to escape the standard limitations, from petty use of spurious relationship to manipulation by low brow secondary source. The impact of gun culture, however, is a topic that continues to be under debate. This isn't surprising, given the multiplke disciplines in criminology that study it. A sociologist, for example, would have little in common with the likes of Gary Becker and the application of the Chicago school to criminal behaviour. Its a shame, however, to see so little thought coming from the pro-gunners.
Pseudo-law-abiding. I have seen sh!t like this before. Typically from people who like to use big words to make themselves feel smart.
Those such as yerself, the self-righteous who seem to think they know it all, 'n Don't... By enforcing the laws in effect, rather than the revolin' door policy of the Liberal Progressives...
They're just not listening. I've said it in several posts, you have and so have many others... what don't they understand??? I believe this is futile. Libs simply do not understand common sense.
Rational gun control is not liberal specific. I'm not a liberal and I'm sure even conservatives, if they break free from the pressure groups herding them towards authoritarianism, can celebrate evidence and welcome the gun control debate.
You're suggesting that conservatives have to break free from authoritarianism before they can celebrate....authoritarianism?
Once again... debate what? Which new laws we need?? That's the problem. We don't enforce the laws we already have, what good is it to create more? That absolutely does not makes sense. Seriously, the deranged dude who wants to go kill a classroom full of innocent kids is not gonna first Google "legal to carry gun on Virginia Tech campus?" The only people affected by gun laws are people who abide by the law.
One of the biggest issues is the lack of enforceability of so many gun laws. The 1989 Import Ban is a good example, I can see the logic of requiring importers to remove particular parts from rifle parts kits and replace them with US made parts (removing parts that make automatic fire capable), however to extent this requirement to other parts, magazine bodies, magazine springs, floor plates, followers, stocks, etc. etc. etc. is a bit silly. More so when it is also applied to purchaser. How can you enforce the ten part rule? Simply ridiculous. As are gun free zones. Without metal detectors the restrictions cannot be enforced. It is not the CCW holder that is the concern, but the person who walks in with intent to kill as many people as possible.
Ayuh,.... Not the laws I'm talkin' 'bout.... I'm talkin' 'bout the laws that make a crime, committed with a Gun, a jailing offense... Then the Liberal Progressives decide the plead it down, 'n the Criminal walks.. No jail time... There are 100s of Good laws already on the books that deal with the criminal elements, yet they're just Not enforced... Millions of times over...
Not so much the inability. We have the ability, we (they) just don't have the desire it seems. We hear so many stories of people with multiple weapon-related arrests, being let go time and time again until they kill someone, or many? We also have the ability to enforce immigration laws. But for the most part, we just don't. Unrelated but same principle. It's nothing but politics. Whether it's from the top at presidential level or down to the city mayor or sheriff. Everyone wants to get re-elected and not step on anyone's toes.
You're asking for repetition. I've already referred to how, for example, differences in the understanding of gun culture will impact on gun control choice Gun control is found to have significant effects on death rates. Let's not pretend gun control isn't successful. The issue is how it should be amended.
I know that it works as the evidence demonstrates it. I have no need for dogma to limit my objectivity
You mean "please reference a paper that has been published in a peer reviewed journal" surely? For the US, try Kwon and Baack (2005, The Effectiveness of Legislation Controlling Gun Usage, American Journal of Economics & Sociology, Vol 64 Issue 2, pp 533-547): This study posits that one of the reasons for these conflicting results is the use of individual laws as the major variable. Instead, this study uses a holistic and comprehensive measure of state gun control laws, grouping states into extreme and lax gun control states. A multivariate linear regression analysis is used to investigate the relationship between a set of determinants, including the holistic gun control measure, and firearm deaths per 100,000 inhabitants of each state. The results show that comprehensive gun control legislation indeed lowers the number of gun-related deaths anywhere between one to almost six per 100,000 individuals in those states that have the most extreme gun-related legislation. For Canada, try Bridges (2004, Gun Control Law, Suicide and Homicide in Canada, Psychological Reports, Vol 94 Issue 3, pp 819-826) Canadian Bill C-17 was implemented in 1991 to restrict the use of firearms, providing a chance to investigate the effect of firearm control laws in the use of firearms for suicide and homicide. Following Lester and Leenaars' comprehensive studies, the present study examined the use of firearms for suicide and homicide during the period prior to the bill and during the period after the passing of Bill C-17 to assess the association of the bill with rates of suicide and homicide by method. Analysis showed a significant decrease after passage of Bill C-17 in the rates of suicides and homicides involving firearms and the percentage of suicides using firearms. The analysis provides support for the position that restricting the availability of firearms as a lethal means of committing suicide and homicide may help reduce the numbers of suicides and homicides
"No effective legislation could be determined since no causal relationship between guns and legislation could be found" For the US, try Kwon and Baack (2005, The Effectiveness of Legislation Controlling Gun Usage, American Journal of Economics & Sociology, Vol 64 Issue 2, p 548 )
Then you would be wrong then. I have never stated a desire to ban all guns. Very few Americans have. You appear to be like Don Quixote chasing windmills, or in case you don't read much, like looking for Martians under the bed. Remember that cynicism feeds hatred, and hatred feeds ignorance. Well, I'm glad that you agree that the gun laws currently on the books are necessary and fruitful. I AM puzzled, however by your broad brush to describe "Liberal Progressives". Your so-called solutions seem to lack any real effort.
A rather mindless statement glaringly devoid of any evidence. Are the "only people affected" by laws against theft, law-abiding citizens? You seem to have a rather backwards impression of the rule of law.
Now, you're not being consistent. You have already stated that we can help lower crime "By enforcing the laws in effect". Now then, assuming that you realize that some of our laws are gun laws, you are thereby admitting that rigerous enforcement and prosecution of gun laws will affect a positive change in crime. You are unwisely taking both sides of this issue.
A better word would be restricted. Only those that abide by the law are restricted from breaking it. Yes, even thieves. It's only after the law has been broken that the law breaker's actions become restricted. And even then, in most cases, it's only temporarily. In the case of gun law, the frustration on the part of lawful owners stems from unnecessary or questionable restrictions to lawful use in order to prevent dangerous use, irresponsible use, or abuse of an inanimate object. Most often, the lawmakers write law based on irrational premises, a poor understanding of the function, design, and use of firearms, and populist conventions. The end result, in the eyes of a lawful owner, is that the ownership of guns is shifted from lawful owners, to owners who do not respect the law at all.
You have missed a whole dynamic in this. You have missed the inevitable link that legal and illegal markets have when applied to gun purchases, and the obvious links that illegal theft has on the law-abiding. You see THIS is the problem with aping gun lobby slogans because they SOUND good until you actually look under the hood and examine them for what they are. Yes, I understand the irrational perceptions of the anti-control mentalities, but this does not excuse the distortion of the facts to justify them. One cannot take a narrow view of a complex issue such as this one to glean anything meaningful. NONE of our laws expect to achieve 100% compliance and could be said to generally ONLY target the law-abiding. This is no different when applied to our gun laws, but this narrow view really misses the whole point of our system of Constitutional rule of law we live by in this Country. It is said that locks keep honest people honest, and laws are analogous to this.
