Expanding the Right to Self-Defense in Florida

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Condor

Research the history of gun violance across the decades. The more anti-gun legislation there is passed, the worse the gun crimes become, not less. That is pretty hard to dispute, but I'm sure you will bust a gut trying.

Actually I'm not aware of any empirical data from neutral sources that indicates that. It certainly hasn't been true in New York, statistically the safest large city in the US, and one of the most restrictive as to private gun ownership.

As I said, I'm a handgun owner and don't favor additional restrictions on gun ownership, but both sides of this debate have agendas a mile long and have long since cooked the books to favor their respective positions.

 

[Train]

I think the whole debate as to wether gun control/gun sentences/etc have positive or negative effects on the gun crime rate is moot.

The constitution says we are allowed to carry guns therefore we are allowed to carry guns. Period.

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Strk
K, so the law didn't increase violent crimes like some expected, but where does it say it was the cause for the decrease?

Do you need someone to tell you it was the reason for the decrease before you can put two and two together? It's common sense it's the reason for the decrease, or at the very least, some of the decrease.

Ah, the giants of analytical thinking, Zendari and ntdz. Violent crime has decreased since gun ownership rules have been relaxed, therefore the new rules must have caused it. Strk, you shouldn't confuse them with even tiny bits of logic, god forbid they'll start exercising their brain cells.

All child molesters have drunk water. ntdz has drunk water too. Therefore, .... (I'll leave it to ntdz to finish the sentence as a homework).

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From ntdz-

"Do you need someone to tell you it was the reason for the decrease before you can put two and two together? It's common sense it's the reason for the decrease, or at the very least, some of the decrease."

Pure projection and wishful thinking, grasping at straws in support of something you want to believe. The same decrease has occurred in other states where no changes took place, probably in places where gun control actually increased...

But that wouldn't fit what you want to believe, so it's irrelevant, right?

Research the history of gun violance across the decades. The more anti-gun legislation there is passed, the worse the gun crimes become, not less. That is pretty hard to dispute, but I'm sure you will bust a gut trying.

It would be interesting to see your sources for that. Do you have any links?

Are you the same DS that asked for links on coffee and health?
It is spelled G-O-O-G-L-E!

Just to educate yet another lib:

http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/australiaguns.html

This speaks to the reverse of your expectations:
http://www.ncpa.org/iss/cri/2002/pd080502e.html

How difficult is gun legislation? Ask the historic experts:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3707071.stm

From the NRA:
http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm

http://www.claremont.org/projects/doctors/000918wheeler.html

If you like graphs, view this timeline and observe the dates that legislation was passed and the densities of deaths by firearm. Most of the laws were passed in the mid 1980's. Notice that gun deaths were pretty flat with minor peaks and valleys until the laws were passed. In 1988, the numbers peaked for 10 years and then started dropping. If the numbers continue to drop, in another couple of years, they will be about where they were in the fifties.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm

Interesting that most (8 out of every 9) crimes are committed without the help of firearms.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/hvfsdaft.pr

"Offenders armed with handguns committed one in every eight
violent crimes--rape, robbery and assault--measured by BJS's
National Crime Victimization Survey. The other violent crime
victims were attacked or threatened by offenders who were
either unarmed or were armed with such weapons as rocks,
sticks, knives or other types of firearms. The most common
violent crime, simple assault, by definition does not involve"
the use of a weapon.


Increase in firearms use consistant with increase of legislation:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/facov.pr

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Violent offenders are increasingly
likely to be armed, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)
said today. While the overall violent crime rate decreased
during the last decade, the rate of offenses committed with
pistols and revolvers rose from 9.2 percent in 1979 to 12.7
percent in 1992.

Another picture just for you:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm

This looks at the cities with the most gun control legislation and the effects of the legislation over a span of years. Funny that the cities with the most legislation also has the most murders:

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline...omicide/Local/RunHomTrendsInOneVar.cfm

State 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Birmingham Police Dept AL 97 88 84 92 100 125 139 133 121 135 121 113 108 85 73 65
Los Angeles County Sheriff Department CA 164 170 164 157 176 215 226 228 229 209 227 165 146 131 117 111 108 135
Los Angeles Police Dept CA 777 834 811 736 877 983 1027 1094 1076 845 849 711 576 426 425 550 588 654
Washington Metropolitan Police Dept DC 147 194 225 369 434 472 482 443 454 399 361 301
St Petersburg Police Dept FL 25 33 28 31 19 23 30 26
Chicago Police Dept IL 744 687 660 742 850 925 939 845 928 824 789 757 703 641 631 666 648


Early history of gun legislation:

http://www.plu.edu/~gunvlnce/history2.html

Later history of gun control legislation:

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/guntime1.html

More timeline of gun control:

http://www.bradycenter.org/about/

Lengthy FOPA:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardfopa.html

"Since the enactment of the Gun Control Act of 1968 there has been a substantial increase in the incidence of gun-related crimes "

http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt171.html

Interesting comparison (charts for the libs) of crime in the UK and the US on a timeline. Proves that gun laws do not deter crime.

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/crvsgraf.html

And while we are on the subject, we would be amiss not to look at our northern neighbor:

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/FailedExperiment.pdf

And finally, the proof that you couldn't find:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus04.pdf

Look at table 45. Actually look at the entire document. Table 45 lays it out as I stated. I could have gone directly to this, but you seemed to require a lot of background. The table quantifies death rates for homicide according to sex, race, Hispanic origin, and age in terms of deaths per 100,000 resident population. They go like this:

1950 5.1, 1960 5.0, 1970 8.8, 1980 10.4 (notice the very effective firearms legislation starting to cost lives instead of saving them?) 1990 9.4, 2000 5.9, 2001 7.1, and 2002 8.1. As firearms legislation drifts into history, the numbers get better, not worse. Go ahead now and compare the numbers with the timelines of legislation. 1968 was a big year in terms of gun grabber success and look at what happened to the death rate. It went from 5.0 in 1960 to a whopping 8.8 in 1970!

 

[Vic]

Gun control is finding people guilty before a crime has even been committed. May as well send people to jail for possessing a plant, based on some wild speculation about what they might do. Oh, we already do that. 😱 Ah, well... I guess the leftists and the fundies aren't that different after all.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

The problem with the statistics you have cited, Condor, is that they make no effort to control for other explanations. I note, for example, that you mention a spike in urban murders starting in 1988 - that happened all over the country, particularly here in the Twin Cities, where I live. It was caused by the proliferation of crack cocaine (which introduced a huge new revenue stream into the hands of street gangs), not by gun control.

If you look at statistics in isolation, and try to correlate them with gun laws, consider this: there has been an overall 32 percent drop in violent crime since Clinton signed the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. (Of course, I personally think this law was completely pointless and had nothing to do with the drop in crime - I attribute that to the fact that there are relatively few young men, who commit most crimes - but if I were reading stats the way you are, this would be clear evidence that the AWB was effective.)

 

[Strk]

Well, his statistics do provide one piece of valuable information, DonVito. You shouldn't live in D.C. 😉

 

[glenn1]

The problem with the statistics you have cited, Condor, is that they make no effort to control for other explanations. I note, for example, that you mention a spike in urban murders starting in 1988 - that happened all over the country, particularly here in the Twin Cities, where I live. It was caused by the proliferation of crack cocaine (which introduced a huge new revenue stream into the hands of street gangs), not by gun control.

If you look at statistics in isolation, and try to correlate them with gun laws, consider this: there has been an overall 32 percent drop in violent crime since Clinton signed the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. (Of course, I personally think this law was completely pointless and had nothing to do with the drop in crime - I attribute that to the fact that there are relatively few young men, who commit most crimes - but if I were reading stats the way you are, this would be clear evidence that the AWB was effective.)

Those opposed to gun control don't have an evidentiary threshold to meet for their position, since the Constitution is quite clear on the point of bearing arms. Those who support gun control rightfully bear complete responsibility for making their case since they are the ones advocating the curtailment of rights. In other words, you don't have a leg to stand on if you're demanding that those who oppose gun control need to provide evidence, the burden of proof is NOT theirs to meet.

 

[YoshiSato]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Dissipate
... IMO, if you aren't willing to use it, don't pull it.

:thumbsup: I would take it further than that. If you arent willing to use it, don't even wear it.

Agreed

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Those opposed to gun control don't have an evidentiary threshold to meet for their position, since the Constitution is quite clear on the point of bearing arms. Those who support gun control rightfully bear complete responsibility for making their case since they are the ones advocating the curtailment of rights. In other words, you don't have a leg to stand on if you're demanding that those who oppose gun control need to provide evidence, the burden of proof is NOT theirs to meet.

:roll:

I already said I oppose additional gun control measures. This doesn't mean it's irrelevant whether the presence of guns, or liberal concealed-carry laws, affect the level of violent crime. Unfortunately there is very little in the way of unbiased data, and what data there is tends to be contaminated by other influences, as I said in my previous post.

I think your discussion of a "burden of proof" is glib and nonsensical - obviously nobody involved in this debate has a "burden of proof." We're just talking here . . .