The battle over "reasonable" gun regulations

[TexasRifleman]

More facts. I know the facts hurt some of your heads because it doesn't line up with your feelings, and I'm sorry for that.

If you have facts you'd like to discuss I am more than happy to hear them.

Here is how much good the Gun Control Act of 1968 did you. This is when you got the restrictions you are so proud of about who could buy a gun. See how much this helped?

Feel better?

Source, with MANY other charts. Don't read though, all your illusions about gun laws keeping you safe will go away.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Zimring68.htm

 

[springmom]

TR: are those absolute figures for each year, or per unit of population, or what? And where did you get them? Might help some of our "reasonable" brethren here if they can go read the original where this came from. (She said hopefully...)

Jan

 

[CoRoMo]

Reading through this thread, I see a number of questions that have gone unanswered. That number is rather large, so I only quote a few in regards to NICS.

What harm to society did the NICS check undo?

Why does there HAVE to be some sort of background check? What purpose does it serve? And can you demonstrate with facts that it actually has served that purpose?

What exactly then is the point of the background checks? They didn't exist before 1993, they still don't apply to private transactions, and 90 something plus percent of guns used in crimes are stolen.

Anyone willing to lift the bat off your shoulder for these pitches?
Continuing to avoid these direct questions reveals the lack of integrity to your argument.

 

[TexasRifleman]

And where did you get them? Might help some of our "reasonable" brethren here if they can go read the original where this came from. (She said hopefully...)

Added the link. That second chart is for cities with populations over 250,000 but the document has tons of stuff.

Not that they will read it or believe it.

I've posted it before and I get the "well, that doesn't really matter" stuff......

Anyone willing to lift the bat off your shoulder for these pitches?

I asked those same 3 questions in the monstrous thread we did on this a while back.

I am still waiting for someone to answer them.

The thing that is truly sad to me is that we're having to debate these things with people that call themselves "pro gun".

To Dave Workman's point in the article he published, if we can't even agree on the terms we use we're toast.

Many in this thread believe their feelings about the current gun laws are "reasonable" yet we prove to them those laws have had no effect.

A truly reasonable person would say "Damn, you're right, the gun laws on the books haven't done a thing, maybe we should try something different".

That never happens either and I am not sure why.

 

[rbernie]

Let's stay on topic. The last three posts just got vaporized - I don't want to lock the whole dang thread but if y'all cannot keep on topic I will have little choice.

 

[waterhouse]

Just read through most of this. I don't have much to add, except to say thanks again to TR and Vern and others for taking the time to fight the good fight, and thanks to Dave Workman for writing the article which hopefully has gotten at least a few folks to think things through.

I recently had a non gun friend bring up the NICS background check, and how important it was. I sent him a link to the last time we hashed this out (mostly the same debaters and certainly the same facts presented) and told him to let me know when he was done reading it if he still thought it was a good idea.

The non gun guy, who at the start of the discussion thought every sale should go through a background check, ended up deciding that no good has come out of the system and that it is therefore a waste of his tax dollars.

But you don't just throw it in the garbage because a small minority of consumers are being inconvenienced.

How many people having their rights trampled on is enough for you? Make no mistake, the government taking away a natural right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights is not merely an "inconvenience."

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The non gun guy, who at the start of the discussion thought every sale should go through a background check, ended up deciding that no good has come out of the system and that it is therefore a waste of his tax dollars.

Which is what any rational person looking at the facts (and not going on pre-conceived ideas) would conclude.

 

[eqfan592]

TR, the chart you have posted there does show a very visible decrease in the rate of increase of the 2 firearms related crimes there starting in 1968, which is actually the first visible support that the 1968 laws DID help prevent crime (or at the very least, reduced it's overall rate of increase). Had the increase continued in the strait line fashion that it did between 1966 and 1968, the later years would have been well off the chart.

However, that chart is not enough to draw a full conclusion like that. I'd like to see an expanded chart, including many years prior to 1968 and going all the way up to current crime rates. But honestly, that chart is not something I would post in order to promote the idea that the 1968 law did nothing.

 

[TexasRifleman]

But honestly, that chart is not something I would post in order to promote the idea that the 1968 law did nothing.

You didn't read the accompanying document did you.... There is no way to get the level of detail needed from a single chart, which is why the link has the rest of the data.

Figure 1 shows trends in handgun homicide and nonfatal assault by firearms in the 57 largest United States cities. The assault figures, which are not broken down by type of firearm, should be composed of about 80 per cent handgun attacks, since 79 per cent of all firearms homicides during the period were committed with handguns in these cities.

Handgun homicides and gun assaults increase consistently throughout the period, but the rate of increase slows considerably after 1969. Assuming about a one-year lead time for guns produced or imported to reach city streets, the moderating rate of increase coincides with the reduction in new handguns entering the civilian market.

One lesson of the 1968 import restrictions is that a production standard need not be conceptually acceptable to have impact on the United States handgun market. Any standards that disrupt handgun, production can have short-run effects, and any standards that raise prices significantly or restrict production capacity can have some long-range impact on handgun sales and use. The problem with this type of partial solution is not merely that it has "loopholes" through which compensating increases in production can flow: it also lacks coherent principle. The mechanism used by section 925(d)(3)¾shutting off the flow of a particular type of weapon¾might work with a relatively high degree of effectiveness if only we could determine what it is that we really want to prohibit.

So, the import market was so severely impacted by the 1968 GCA that handgun crimes decreased for a short period because of lack of domestic production.

Once domestic production came back up so did the crime rate.

So, as the document and data show, the licensing of FFLs, the age limits, the restriction on certain types of persons, none of these things made any change in the crime rate. The slowing during the period after the GCA is attributable nearly 100% to the decrease in the market place.

So sure, if you want to make it illegal to manufacture all types guns then yes, you can impact gun crime. But you can't do it just on imports, you would need to fundamentally outlaw all firearm production in this country.

Sometimes I get the feeling some here would be OK with that.

 

[eqfan592]

Not the entire thing, no, but I did read portions of it. First the paper is over 30 years old, so there is no current data available. Second, the author even states that there is a visible moderation in the rate of increase based off that chart (though it is not stated that the moderation is due to the 1968 bill, but this IS a conclusion that could be drawn from the chart).

All I'm saying is that the chart in question is not any sort of "slam dunk" against the 1968 law. And please note that while the author does call into question the usefulness of the law, he also admits that his conclusions are not entirely based on nor entirely supported by the data on hand.

 

[Big_E]

IMHO, waiting periods are stupid. If I were going to kill someone or myself I would have done so without waiting the 10 days (here in CA) and I wouldn't need to buy a new firearm. I could easily do either with a knife, my hands, a car, accelerants and a lighter, etc...

Also, the mentally "disabled" and convicted felons becomes are tough dilemma with me. Those released from prison and off of parole have served their time, some change their ways and some don't, but what does background checks gonna do if they will just go to one of their "homies" house and get a pistol with the serial #'s filed off for dirt cheap? People with mental disabilities are also kind of tough in this regard. I know some of these people who are very nice and law abiding. Maybe some disorders should be restricted but who knows. All it should come down to is maybe, just maybe whether or not a person has a strong history of violence, then again, a bureaucrat will be the one who defines "strong history" and someone who only threw a punch when he or she were 5 can become a victim.... It's a tough world out there. /end rant

 

[TexasRifleman]

First the paper is over 30 years old, so there is no current data available.

See, you guys are never happy. This is what I mean, arguing about something that doesn't even matter.

The report is centered around the effects of laws before and after the 1968 GCA, so who cares if the data has modern information in it.

The time frame from the mid 50's to the mid 70's is all that matters.

All I'm saying is that the chart in question is not any sort of "slam dunk" against the 1968 law.

As I just explained, the decrease is attributable to the outlawing of imports. The crime rate came back up once domestic manufacturers increased their production.

All of your and others arguments have centered around the age restrictions, background checks, firearms dealer licenses etc. Those are shown by this report and the other research to have not done a single thing to the crime rate.

The only thing that impacted it was restricting imports, or restricting domestic gun production completely.

Certainly with enough muscle gun crime could be reduced drastically. Shut down all the gun makers, you'd see a crime drop eventually.

As I said, I get the feeling that some here would be fine with that.

The hard part for you I think is that you are not used to seeing people in the debate be completely honest.

I am being completely honest in the presentation of the data. No spin, not making things up as I go.

The data does show some crime reduction from the '68 GCA, because of the import restrictions.

It would be dishonest to claim otherwise.

However, it's just as dishonest to attribute the drop to dealer licensing, age limits, restrictions of selling to felons, ending mail order sales, etc.

And, that is the claim that you and others have made, that these limitations on the sale of firearms has helped or will help control gun crime.

It has not, and does not. Will you admit it? I doubt it.

 

[runrabbitrun]

Real late to the party here...

2a states:

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.

CCW permits, background checks, permits to purchase a hand gun, et el
are ALL infringements of the 2a and are therefore, unconstitutional.

I, being an American (the home of the free) WILL NOT follow these unconstitutional laws.

ALL the legislation/rules/regulations that have been added to our countries laws in this regard
are indeed illegal/unconstitutional and therefore >>> MUST and WILL be repealed.
(One way or the other)...

I am sick and tired of worrying if my guns (tools) are breaking some 'unconstitutional law'.
I'm sick and tired of wondering if the guns in my truck are 'secured' in some lock box
prescribed by 'illegal laws/rules/regulations', just to carry them to the range to shoot,
or traverse through-out the US.
I'm sick and tired of worrying that if I shoot a bad guy coming into my home.
It may result in me going to jail or being sued by his surviving relatives.
I'm sick and tired of _______________


I could go on, but I'm sick and tired of it all.

I want MY country back from these 'feel good' emotional asp wipe liberals/socialists/nannys/tyrants/communists...
(Or what ever label we want to give them.)
And I'm willing to take it back with what ever means/force is necessary to do so.

I hope I'm not alone.

 

[eqfan592]

TR, I was going to respond a little more harshly, but then I realized that I think you have me mistaken for someone else. I don't believe I have made any arguments specifically stating that the age restrictions helped reduce crime. I have said at one time (though not on this thread I believe) that those seemed to make sense to me, but I believe on that thread you pointed out that they did not have any appreciable impact, and at the time I did not argue, as I didn't entirely disagree with your statement. Thus, I don't think it is fair to say that I am being dishonest in our discussion here, nor that I have made any sweeping claims about the effectiveness of age restrictions, background checks, etc.

Something that you need to remember is that playing devil’s advocate with each other is one of the best things we can do to help defend our rights. If we don't have good, SOLID answers to these questions, then we will have a harder time dealing with those that would take away our 2a rights.

I don't entirely agree with you that only data from the 50's to 70's is useful, but I do see your point. I would still like to see information reaching from 20 years in each direction from the passage of the bill. Also, as I stated earlier, I did not have the chance to read the entirety of that article, but does it reference other nations that may have introduced similar age restrictions and background checks, but without the import restrictions, to see if the other restrictions by themselves had any affect? I would be curious to see such data, and I'm sure it has to be out there somewhere. I'll make sure to look around for it if nobody else has a quick source.

 

[eqfan592]

runrabbit, the problem is that you never owned the country personally, nor was it ever included in the constitution that only YOUR way would be the right way at all times. Part of living in a democracy is dealing with people who have a different world view. If you can't handle that, and feel the need to resort to threats of force against those who don't agree with you, then maybe democracy isn't your best bet.

And I think this is WAY off topic, and not really appropriate either.

 

[TexasRifleman]

ut then I realized that I think you have me mistaken for someone else. I don't believe I have made any arguments specifically stating that the age restrictions helped reduce crime.

My apologies. Too many posts to keep up with, and I'm sorry for mistaking yours.

I would be curious to see such data, and I'm sure it has to be out there somewhere. I'll make sure to look around for it if nobody else has a quick source.

The NRA, SAF, etc have put together literally thousands of pages on all this stuff and it all come back to the same general conclusion.

Gun laws have never been shown to have real, true, measurable impact on crime.

Even in places where they are so repressive that guns are all but unheard of the crimes simply move to being committed with other tools; knives, rocks, or sharp sticks.

You can't find a single success story of gun laws fixing crime problems, even in the most repressive countries on the planet.

All you find is a trail of disarmed law abiding citizens.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Certainly with enough muscle gun crime could be reduced drastically. Shut down all the gun makers, you'd see a crime drop eventually

No, you'd see an increase in gun smuggling.

And if we can't stop the smuggling of drugs and illegal workers, how can we ever stop the smuggling of guns, once we create a market?

 

[TexasRifleman]

No, you'd see an increase in gun smuggling.

And if we can't stop the smuggling of drugs and illegal workers, how can we ever stop the smuggling of guns, once we create a market?

Exactly, that's next. You'd see crime dip drastically for a while til they started coming in from Mexico, then the same thing starts again.

Same with this 68 GCA data, we saw a marked dip at first, then it came right back up when the supply caught up.

Criminals are going to commit crimes, that's just what they do. Believing that restricting access to guns will stop that is just insane.

And this thread is getting old.


In the end, some folks here really believe they are safer with restrictions in place regarding licensing of firearms dealers, background checks, age restrictions beyond the usual adult age (21 for handguns), restrictions on law abiding citizens carrying guns, etc. even when all the data shows otherwise.

They don't have any proof, they don't even try to offer any, but they cling to those beliefs with all their might. Then they call themselves advocates of the Second Amendment. As long as that is the case we won't see much change in the gun laws in this country.

 

[runrabbitrun]

runrabbit, the problem is that you never owned the country personally, nor was it ever included in the constitution that only YOUR way would be the right way at all times. Part of living in a democracy is dealing with people who have a different world view. If you can't handle that, and feel the need to resort to threats of force against those who don't agree with you, then maybe democracy isn't your best bet.

And I think this is WAY off topic, and not really appropriate either.

I'm just saying... enough is enough.

It's TIME our legistlators LOOK at ALL these
unconstitutional laws and reform them as needed.

You can't keep piling law after law after law and expect anyone can
understand them.. Let alone abide by and/or follow them.

And my post IS appropriate. IMHO

 

[eqfan592]

Vern, you make a very good point. The war on drugs has been a total failure, thus I doubt any such war on "guns" if they were to be made illegal would or if further restrictions were put forward would be any more effective.

TR, no problem man, it happens I know that the NRA has boat loads of info, but I wasn't sure that specific comparison was ever done. I'll poke around their site and see if I can find it or a similar study.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Criminals are going to commit crimes, that's just what they do. Believing that restricting access to guns will stop that is just insane.

It's all based on the fallicy that inanimate objects cause crime. As someone said, that makes about as much sense as Rosie O'Donnell blaming spoons for making her fat.

 

[googol]

Should "assault articles" be banned?

If such articles could blow my brains out from a mile away, then I'd look closely at restrictions on them.

 

[runrabbitrun]

I personally would like to see anyone who debates
this type stuff do like I've done in other debates.

Admit when your wrong and learn something from the debate.

Infringements we see today on 2A are wrong.

If we need to change the 2a's wording.... FINE.

DO IT...
And quit trying to circumvent the Constitution Of The United States.

Many people DIED to defend it.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Should "assault articles" be banned?

If such articles could blow my brains out from a mile away, then I'd look closely at restrictions on them.

Perhaps you don't understand how dangerous assault articles are. They can be distributed through the mail, embedded in magazines and newspapers. So embedded, they can be picked up and read by children.

Assault articles are known to cause elevated blood pressure in consevatives and extreme flatulence in liberals.

Only licensed journalists should be allowed to write assault articles, and there should be a transfer tax of $200 for each copy of a magazine or newspaper containing an assault article. Only persons who have been psychologically screened should be allowed to buy media with assault articles, which must have an internal lock to keep children from accessing them.

 

[Big_E]

Another thing, people (gun grabbers/politcians) seem to fail at realizing that it is the !!!2ND!!! Amendment. Not the 5th or 9th or 19th etc...

Our founding fathers had a reason to place gun rights second, to protect our freedoms. If it were instead placed in the 19th spot then maybe it would be more tangible to debate. Like my old man says, "You can't have the 1st Amendment without the 2nd!"