If There Were No Antis What Gun Laws Would You Have?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Untrue, Vern. Crime rates were higher in 1968 than in 2008. They also, btw, were higher in 1878 than in 2008.
 
That's my point. Back when anyone, regardless of how old, could get a gun through the mail, crime was much lower.

Similarly, when states adopt liberalized CCW, violent crime goes down, not up.
Click to expand...
First of all, those two points are entirely unrelated. Secondly, MY point was that the rise in crime is almost completely unrelated to how easy or difficult it is to get a gun. Guns don't make people commit crimes, so whether they are difficult or easy to obtain has nothing to do with the crime rate. There are other factors that affect the crime rate, but the ease of obtaining a gun in 1950 was not the reason that the crime rate was lower. The reason was what I said above. Better economy, not as crouded of cities, different culture, personal responsibility, less lenient sentencing, violence not being as acceptable in society, different values, etc. etc. etc. The ease of obtaining a gun did not generate crime. Neither does the difficulty of obtaining one.
 
You know, I am going to open up a can of worms here, I know, but I seriously feel like this needs to be said in this thread.

For those of you who feel that the government needs to regulate and set forth a set of rules on everything from raising your kids, to feeding your family, to providing shelter, allowing you to work, and a plethora of other things you can think of that your uncle needs to handle for you since you feel that you or the general populous can't handle; you should look into moving to Cuba or every other communist nation.

The founding fathers of this nation knew that a nation built upon the principles of being free and having to scrounge for yourself and not have a nanny taking care of you, is the foundation of a proper system of life. They believed the government's role was not there to take care of your responsibilties. And your responsibilities include protecting and caring for your family and self.

Firearms are the most useful tool available to provide and defend for you and your loved ones. Hence, with that said, regulating TOOLS, which is all gun laws do, is no different then regulating food, shelter, medicine, etc. For example, you are single, so even if you have the means, you don't NEED to have 50 acres of land, so it needs to be regulated. The beauty of liberty is that it doesn't matter what you need, you shall not infringed, simple as that. If I have the means to acquire an M1 Abrams or RPG's or whatever else I want, there should be no bureaucrat telling me that I shouldn't because it's something I don't need.

I stand by the notion that EVERY firearm ownership, purchase, usage, transfer law should be repealed. Honestly, what difference does it make? Has history not shown us that every prohibition just breeds criminal activity? With the amount of screaming I hear for more government regulation on everything, I am guessing we do not. As has been shown from another example, people prior to 1934 were not continuously shooting each other, but yet in the 2000's we are. Doesn't that show us something? Or am I the only one that has noticed this?

Damian
 
Vern Humphrey said:
Well, I read the scatological insult you posted, and I'll agree with the "nut" part, anyway.
Click to expand...

He later stated that the insult wasn't directed at anyone in particular, so one must conclude it was directed at everyone in general.:)
 
expvideo: "There are other factors that affect the crime rate, but the ease of obtaining a gun in 1950 was not the reason that the crime rate was lower. The reason was what I said above. Better economy, not as crouded of cities, different culture, personal responsibility, less lenient sentencing, violence not being as acceptable in society, different values, etc. etc. etc."

Not to pick a fight, but these are myths. City living in 1950 was MUCH MORE crowded than today. People lived in tenement walk-ups, sometimes families of six in a two bedroom apartment, if that. Zoning was much less developed, so buildings had no setbacks and families shared small homes. Shopping malls barely existed, so people crowded into tiny fruit and fish markets. The federal interstate highway system didn't exist, so people rode subways and elevated trains and trolleys and buses to work, packed in like sardines. It was a common joke. People mostly worked 9 to 5 jobs, so rush hour was a teeming horde of workers in the streets. Factories were still labor intensive, thousands of guys packed into one block of machinery. People went to church in little white churches, hundreds and hundreds of them in two-hundred year old wooden sheds. People shopped downtown, so the retail districts were mobbed at Christmastime. The 1950s were CROWDED. Only later, with suburbs and shopping malls and staggered shifts and white collar service economies, did things sprawl out.

Sentencing was much more lenient in 1950 too, in the age before three strikes your out, mandatory minimums, the war on drugs, and all that foolishness.
 
Untrue, Vern. Crime rates were higher in 1968 than in 2008. They also, btw, were higher in 1878 than in 2008.
Click to expand...

Not according to the FBI. Don't you ever get tired of making up facts to support your erroneous conclusions? The crime rate in 1968 was considerably lower than 2007. Since there are no numbers for all of 2008 compiled yet there is no data to support your position other than the hot air you keep pumping.

If you can find numbers to support your 1878 position go for it. But every time you get asked to prove one of your made up "facts" you run from it.

http://www.jrsa.org/programs/Historical.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
 
Titan, the very graphs you cite to show a steep decline. According to the figures cited further down, violent crime in the U.S. appears to have peaked in 1991, and declined precipitously afterward.
 
My position is not statist, unless you mean that any restrictions at all are statist. Compared to the mainstream, I am a libertarian gun nut.
Click to expand...

Statism (or Etatism) is a term that is used to describe:

1. Specific instances of state intervention in personal, social or economic matters.
Click to expand...

Who are you trying to kid? You can call yourself whatever you want but what you are is something else entirely.
 
Not to pick a fight, but these are myths. City living in 1950 was MUCH MORE crowded than today. People lived in tenement walk-ups, sometimes families of six in a two bedroom apartment, if that. Zoning was much less developed, so buildings had no setbacks and families shared small homes. Shopping malls barely existed, so people crowded into tiny fruit and fish markets. The federal interstate highway system didn't exist, so people rode subways and elevated trains and trolleys and buses to work, packed in like sardines. It was a common joke. People mostly worked 9 to 5 jobs, so rush hour was a teeming horde of workers in the streets. Factories were still labor intensive, thousands of guys packed into one block of machinery. People went to church in little white churches, hundreds and hundreds of them in two-hundred year old wooden sheds. People shopped downtown, so the retail districts were mobbed at Christmastime. The 1950s were CROWDED. Only later, with suburbs and shopping malls and staggered shifts and white collar service economies, did things sprawl out.

Sentencing was much more lenient in 1950 too, in the age before three strikes your out, mandatory minimums, the war on drugs, and all that foolishness.
Click to expand...
OK, so maybe the cities were more crouded. I wasn't around then. Anyway, my point is that the culture has changed a lot, and that has much more to do with gun crime than tightening regulations.
 
Titan, the very graphs you cite to show a steep decline. According to the figures cited further down, violent crime in the U.S. appears to have peaked in 1991, and declined precipitously afterward.
Click to expand...

Yes, but what you posted was in all probability a lie. Crime in 2007 was much higher than 1968 and barring a sudden precipitous drop that can't really be explained than the crime rate in 2008 will likely prove to be higher than 1968. If the crime continues to drop it may one day be lower than 1968 levels but we are probably looking at another decade before that.
 
Untrue, Vern. Crime rates were higher in 1968 than in 2008.
Click to expand...

Not true.

In fact, I went to the FBI UCR and they don't have that data immediately available. They are mailing me a CD with the crime data from 1960 forward, but no numerical data on their website goes back beyond 2002.

I did obtain graphical data from 1973 to 2005. This indicates there were between 40 and 60 violent crimes per 100,000 in the years from 1973 to 1994. Violent crime began dropping after than, and stood at around 20 per 100,000 in 2005, the last year shown.

The graph indicates an upward trend in 1973, so it is reasonable to conclude violent crime was rising, not falling, immediately prior to that time.

For earlier years, I am relying on previous studies -- which indicare violent crime was much lower in the '50s, when I bought a rifle mail order.

They also, btw, were higher in 1878 than in 2008.
Click to expand...
Since the FBI only started recording crime data in 1930, and did not have full national coveragge until 1960, on what do you base that claim?
 
Since the FBI only started recording crime data in 1930, and did not have full national coveragge until 1960, on what do you base that claim?
Click to expand...

He does not, he just makes that stuff up. It is just like arguing with any other anti. Pretty soon he is going to say "you guys just don't get it!"
 
the very graphs you cite to show a steep decline. According to the figures cited further down, violent crime in the U.S. appears to have peaked in 1991, and declined precipitously afterward.
Click to expand...

Which corresponds to <gasp> the surge in liberalized CCW!:eek:

Now can you show an increase in accidental shootings over the same period? Of course you can't, because there has been no such increase -- in fact, there has been a decrease!

For all your scatology, you have been conclusively proven wrong.
 
No one single study, Vern. Mostly general reading in the area of criminal law and criminal justice. I'm also not just referring to violent crime.

Keep in mind that a lot of crime occurring in 1968 is not considered crime today, and so would not be comparable or included in 1968 figures prepared today. For example, abortion was murder in 1968, but the murder rates for 1968 in Titan's graphs do not include abortions. Marijuana possession was criminal in 1968, and arrest figures reflect that, but marijuana has been de facto or de jure decriminalized in many states today, so we do not think of marijuana possession as a crime as they did in 1968, and so modern figures do not include pot possession crimes for 1968 as "drug crime". Fraud was considerably easier and more prevalent in 1968 than in 2008 as well. And then there are all the crimes created post 1968 via RICO. It's probably an apples and oranges problem. It's easy to compare figures for, say, bank robberies, but that is a small fraction of all crime.
 
Vern, I don't know why you luimp me in with the antis. I have a CCW, I carry every day, and I think everyone who can own a firearm should be able to carry concealed. My points about crime had nothing to do with CCW permits.
 
No one single study, Vern. Mostly general reading in the area of criminal law and criminal justice. I'm also not just referring to violent crime.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Keep in mind that a lot of crime occurring in 1968 is not considered crime today, and so would not be comparable or included in 1968 figures prepared today. For example, abortion was murder in 1968, but the murder rates for 1968 in Titan's graphs do not include abortions. Marijuana possession was criminal in 1968, and arrest figures reflect that, but marijuana has been de facto or de jure decriminalized in many states today, so we do not think of marijuana possession as a crime as they did in 1968, and so modern figures do not include pot possession crimes for 1968 as "drug crime". Fraud was considerably easier and more prevalent in 1968 than in 2008 as well. And then there are all the crimes created post 1968 via RICO. It's probably an apples and oranges problem. It's easy to compare figures for, say, bank robberies, but that is a small fraction of all crime.
Click to expand...

Hmm, well everything you are saying seems to indicate that there is more crime today than 1968, the opposite of what you said a few posts ago. I certainly would have to disagree about fraud being more prevalent in 1968 as well. A lot of fraud now occurs with the actor outside of the US victimizing someone inside the US or occurs on such large scale (Billions and billions of dollars) that there is no way to say there is less fraud now than there was in 1968.
 
Vern, I don't know why you luimp me in with the antis. I have a CCW, I carry every day, and I think everyone who can own a firearm should be able to carry concealed. My points about crime had nothing to do with CCW permits.
Click to expand...

Because you come with the same drivel the antis use, including stuff like this:

No one single study, Vern. Mostly general reading in the area of criminal law and criminal justice. I'm also not just referring to violent crime.
Click to expand...
 
I don't know why you luimp me in with the antis. I have a CCW, I carry every day, and I think everyone who can own a firearm should be able to carry concealed. My points about crime had nothing to do with CCW permits.
Click to expand...

You are getting lumped in; in the same fashion that Zumbo was. Not because you are true anti but because you want to restrict freedoms in ways that are illogical. Also you lie and make stuff up to support your bogus positions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
Gun laws- if you were in charge, what would you keep?
2
Replies
40
Views
1K
Muzzleflash
M
T
  • Locked
What Impact Would Greater Numbers Of CHPs Have?
2
Replies
25
Views
747
230RN
230RN
H
  • Locked
Were you ever anti-gun?
2 3 4 5
Replies
124
Views
7K
hdwhit
H
H
  • Locked
For those new to guns, here's the mindset you will find against you
Replies
6
Views
444
powell&hyde
P
R
  • Locked
How law-abiding are you?
Replies
7
Views
580
rbernie
rbernie
Back
Top