Liberal arguments for supporting gun ownership rights

[Dante]

"I have it. His name shall be Rozinante."

Ok, now where getting somewhere. You're ok with a little over 10,000 gun deaths per year nationwide.

Now, what kind of books do you suppose he read? He read no histories nor books of travel. He cared nothing for poetry or philosophy. His whole mind was given to stories—stories of knights and their daring deeds.

He read so many of these stories that he could not think of anything else. His head was full of knights and knightly deeds, of magic and witchcraft, of tournaments and battlefields. If he had read less, he would have been wiser; for much reading does not always improve the mind.

At length this old-fashioned gentleman said to himself, Now, what kind of books do you suppose he read? He read no histories nor books of travel. He cared nothing for poetry or philosophy. His whole mind was given to stories—stories of knights and their daring deeds.

He read so many of these stories that he could not think of anything else. His head was full of knights and knightly deeds, of magic and witchcraft, of tournaments and battlefields. If he had read less, he would have been wiser; for much reading does not always improve the mind.

At length this old-fashioned gentleman said to himself, "Why should I always be a plain farmer and sit here at home? Why may I not become a famous knight?"

The more he thought about this matter the more he wished to be a hero like those of whom he had read in his books. "Yes, I will be a knight," he said to himself. "My mind is fully made up. I will arm myself in a coat of mail, I will mount my noble steed (the fastest horse), I will ride out into the world to seek adventures.

No danger shall affright me. With my strong arm I will go forth to protect the weak and to befriend the friendless. Yes, I will be a knight, and I will fight against error wherever I find it." So he began at once to get ready for his great undertaking. The first thing to be done was to find some suitable armor. For what knight ever rode out into the world without being incased in steel?

 

[Harry Dresden]

It wasn't that people disagreed with his findings, it was his methodology that was attacked, as the article at the link points out.

Econometric Modeling as Junk Science

so some guy named John Goertzel disagrees with John Lott.....big fucking deal,so does Chris....remember Anti-Gunner Gary Kleck was writing his book to counter what John Lott was saying in his.....now Gary Kleck after doing his research found that many of the FACTS Lott put forth.....had a lot of truth to them.....i heard Kleck about 6 months ago on talk radio DEFENDING gun rights,i thought it was Lott on the show......

 

[Harry Dresden]

While I agreed with you about gangs and the family, I believe tough gun laws and tough sentencing laws both deter crime.

There is no theft in Saudi Arabia.

no theft but apparently they still have gun violence,since there has been shootouts between the Saudi Security Forces and terrorist groups....

 

[Chris]

This video never gets old...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWXVc7iMBlE]YouTube - Accidental gun shots[/ame]

 

[Bern80]

This video never gets old...

YouTube - Accidental gun shots

What is your point exactly? You're gonna try and go the shock value route as your basis for more heavily regulating firearms? That's the intellectual level you need to stoop to? How about you show a little intellecutal integrity and post the end results of a few head on collisions at 65 mph then come back and explain why guns must be so heavily regulated but you're just willing to live with the carnage on our roadways.

 

[Chris]

What is your point exactly? You're gonna try and go the shock value route as your basis for more heavily regulating firearms? That's the intellectual level you need to stoop to? How about you show a little intellecutal integrity and post the end results of a few head on collisions at 65 mph then come back and explain why guns must be so heavily regulated but you're just willing to live with the carnage on our roadways.

I am so glad you brought up cars.

Cars are regulated for safety because they can kill people. All cars have to be registered. People who own cars have to have a driver's license. People who are irresponsible driving lose their right to drive cars. Guns should be regulated the same way. Let the responsible people have guns, not the criminals and the crazies.

 

[Diuretic]

so some guy named John Goertzel disagrees with John Lott.....big fucking deal,so does Chris....remember Anti-Gunner Gary Kleck was writing his book to counter what John Lott was saying in his.....now Gary Kleck after doing his research found that many of the FACTS Lott put forth.....had a lot of truth to them.....i heard Kleck about 6 months ago on talk radio DEFENDING gun rights,i thought it was Lott on the show......

Hey - not one bloke...many. I was being polite. If you want to me to post all the articles that show that Lott's methodology was all fucked up I'll just give you a fucking Google index. I didn't want to overdo it but in your case I'll make an exception.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Hey - not one bloke...many. I was being polite. If you want to me to post all the articles that show that Lott's methodology was all fucked up I'll just give you a fucking Google index. I didn't want to overdo it but in your case I'll make an exception.

and i will come back with just as many sites supporting the guy DI.....so who are you gonna believe?......you guys LET your govt take your guns,and what i get out of other Aussie posters in other forums,the ONLY Aussies who stood up to the Govt.was the farmers and ranchers,and when they turned around,lo and behold,they were alone....i guess Austrailia does have a lot of sheep....

 

[Cecilie1200]

It wasn't that people disagreed with his findings, it was his methodology that was attacked, as the article at the link points out.

Econometric Modeling as Junk Science

And what a STERLING, reliable attack! This is what your vaunted "debunking" says:

He challenges anyone who disagrees with him to download his data set and redo his calculations, but most social scientists do not think it worth their while to replicate studies using methods that have repeatedly failed. Most gun control researchers simply brushed off Lott and Mustard's claims and went on with their work. Two highly respected criminal justice researchers, Frank Zimring and Gordon Hawkins (1997) wrote an article explaining that:

just as Messrs. Lott and Mustard can, with one model of the determinants of homicide, produce statistical residuals suggesting that 'shall issue' laws reduce homicide, we expect that a determined econometrician can produce a treatment of the same historical periods with different models and opposite effects. Econometric modeling is a double-edged sword in its capacity to facilitate statistical findings to warm the hearts of true believers of any stripe.
Zimring and Hawkins were right.

In other words, "We don't want to try to duplicate your findings, so we're just going to say that they suck, and agree with each other that they suck, and that makes you wrong, because we think you suck!"

If you're going to try to tell me, "Oh, stay away from John Lott. He's wrong about everything!" you will at least do me the courtesy of referencing something that involves proof, not some bunch of jackasses who don't like his findings, and feel that he SHOULD be wrong, so that means he must be.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hey - not one bloke...many. I was being polite. If you want to me to post all the articles that show that Lott's methodology was all fucked up I'll just give you a fucking Google index. I didn't want to overdo it but in your case I'll make an exception.

No, what you were being was vague and disingenuous. Just as your "We don't like him, and he SHOULD be wrong, therefore he MUST be, and that's all the proof we need" quote is crap, so is this, "Oh, there are lots of guys, no I'm not naming them, but I could, so you should just believe that they exist" garbage.

You have a "fucking Google index" of proof that he's wrong? I'd settle for you coming up with ONE bit of evidence that he is, because you sure as hell haven't so far. Let's see your so-called index, and try worrying about DOING it before you worry about overdoing it.

 

[Chris]

In 1998, 30,708 Americans were killed with firearms - in homicides, suicides and accidents. In comparison, 33,651 Americans were killed in the Korean War and 58,148 Americans were killed in the Vietnam War. [19]

In 1998 alone, licensed firearms dealers sold an estimated 4.4 million guns, 1.7 million of which were handguns.[20]

Sales of handguns per adult are now roughly twice the level of 40 years ago.[21]

Of all accidental fatalities involving firearms, 71% involve handguns.[22]

Finally, you may want to consider one more statistic...

In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada, 213 in Germany and 9,390 in the United States.[23]

http://www.bradycenter.org/stop2/facts/fs2.php

 

[Diuretic]

and i will come back with just as many sites supporting the guy DI.....so who are you gonna believe?......you guys LET your govt take your guns,and what i get out of other Aussie posters in other forums,the ONLY Aussies who stood up to the Govt.was the farmers and ranchers,and when they turned around,lo and behold,they were alone....i guess Austrailia does have a lot of sheep....

In the wake of the killings at Port Arthur in 1996 the Howard conservative government pressured the states and territories to tighten gun laws by banning certain weapons, among them s/auto firearms and long weapons with magazines over 5 bullets (from memory). Law abiding firearms owners turned up to hand over their soon to be unlawful weapons, with a bit of grumbling, and took compensation from the state governments funded by the conservatives in power in Canberra. Again from memory there were no incidents during the buyback. Some firearms owners have been charged with possessing weapons that should have been handed over but the numbers haven't been great.

What do you expect them to do? I mean really, are you one of these people who would hole up in your cabin and shoot it out with the authorities? Or is that just a fantasy scenario? Because our firearms owners are reasonable, law-abiding people they didn't act like crazed nutters and hole up to shoot it out. They complied with the law.

It was a crap piece of populist politics from a Prime Minister who made an art form out of populism. It was crap public policy but it was built on an irrrational fear about firearms whipped up by the conservative government in power for its own dirty political reasons.

So, again, what would you have our law-abiding, responsible firearms owners do? Invade Parliament House and take the PM hostage?

Thanks for the slagging off in your post, sheep indeed. Anyway keep playing your fantasy scenario about resisting the government, but don't forget to get in touch with reality now and again.

 

[Diuretic]

And what a STERLING, reliable attack! This is what your vaunted "debunking" says:

He challenges anyone who disagrees with him to download his data set and redo his calculations, but most social scientists do not think it worth their while to replicate studies using methods that have repeatedly failed. Most gun control researchers simply brushed off Lott and Mustard's claims and went on with their work. Two highly respected criminal justice researchers, Frank Zimring and Gordon Hawkins (1997) wrote an article explaining that:

just as Messrs. Lott and Mustard can, with one model of the determinants of homicide, produce statistical residuals suggesting that 'shall issue' laws reduce homicide, we expect that a determined econometrician can produce a treatment of the same historical periods with different models and opposite effects. Econometric modeling is a double-edged sword in its capacity to facilitate statistical findings to warm the hearts of true believers of any stripe.
Zimring and Hawkins were right.

In other words, "We don't want to try to duplicate your findings, so we're just going to say that they suck, and agree with each other that they suck, and that makes you wrong, because we think you suck!"

If you're going to try to tell me, "Oh, stay away from John Lott. He's wrong about everything!" you will at least do me the courtesy of referencing something that involves proof, not some bunch of jackasses who don't like his findings, and feel that he SHOULD be wrong, so that means he must be.

Sorry C - Lott has no credibility any longer in the discussion, that's all there is to it. I'm surprised anyone still references him.

 

[Diuretic]

No, what you were being was vague and disingenuous. Just as your "We don't like him, and he SHOULD be wrong, therefore he MUST be, and that's all the proof we need" quote is crap, so is this, "Oh, there are lots of guys, no I'm not naming them, but I could, so you should just believe that they exist" garbage.

You have a "fucking Google index" of proof that he's wrong? I'd settle for you coming up with ONE bit of evidence that he is, because you sure as hell haven't so far. Let's see your so-called index, and try worrying about DOING it before you worry about overdoing it.

Media Matters - NY Times published discredited scholar John Lott

Extract:

As Media Matters for America previously noted, Lott has been caught using fraudulent data, has been accused of lying about it to cover his tracks, and of using a fake Internet persona to hype his own falsified work. Lott claims to have conducted a 1997 survey on defensive gun usage, but evidence strongly suggests he never conducted it. A February 11, 2003, Washington Post article noted that Lott's "critics are asking: What national survey? Lott has been unable to produce the poll data, which he says were lost when his computer crashed." Lott also misrepresented the findings of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on voter disenfranchisement in Florida during the 2000 presidential election.

Bellesiles of the right? - By Timothy Noah - Slate Magazine

Extract:

One type of faking that apparently is Lott's style is the assumption of a fictional identity on the Internet. (This is the piece of the story that the Washington Post's Richard Morin zeroed in on.) Lott has posted Web comments defending his work using a "sock puppet" named Mary Rosh. He was busted by Julian Sanchez, a blogger who works at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington. One posting that Lott has admitted to posting read as follows:

I had [Lott] for a PhD level empirical methods class when he taught at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania back in the early 1990s, well before he gained national attention, and I have to say that he was the best professor that I ever had. You wouldn't know that he was a 'right-wing' ideologue from the class. ... There were a group of us students who would try to take any class that he taught. Lott finally had to tell us that it was best for us to try and take classes from other professors more to be exposed to other ways of teaching graduate material.

Mary Rosh also gave More Guns, Less Crime a rave review on Amazon.com:

Lott writes very well. He explains things in an understandable commonsense way. I have loaned out my copy a dozen times and while it may have taken some effort to get people started on the book, once they read it no one was disappointed. If you want an emotional book, this is not the book for you.

Lott says he didn't post the Amazon review; his 16-year-old son did. The "Mary Rosh" e-mail address belongs to his four sons, Lott told Chatterbox—it's derived from their first names—and Lott has used it now and then so that, if he fails to answer a response, it won't be interpreted as "me conceding things." Lott now says the deception was "wrong."

As I said, no credibility.

 

[Bobby_Ray]

I would have to say that there are more pressing issues that need to be taken care of (the economy, creation of new jobs) besides liberals placing gun control as a priority. It's not the gun that's dangerous in the first place, but the person who picks up the gun and uses the gun-the gun can't fire itself. And, a criminal or anyone can obtain a gun on the black market if they don't want to obtain it the legal way by waiting for a background check.

 

[Chris]

I would have to say that there are more pressing issues that need to be taken care of (the economy, creation of new jobs) besides liberals placing gun control as a priority. It's not the gun that's dangerous in the first place, but the person who picks up the gun and uses the gun-the gun can't fire itself. And, a criminal or anyone can obtain a gun on the black market if they don't want to obtain it the legal way by waiting for a background check.

Local Background Checks, Fewer Gun Deaths

 

[Bern80]

I am so glad you brought up cars.

Cars are regulated for safety because they can kill people. All cars have to be registered. People who own cars have to have a driver's license. People who are irresponsible driving lose their right to drive cars. Guns should be regulated the same way. Let the responsible people have guns, not the criminals and the crazies.

Guns already ARE regulated that way. You have to pass a criminal background check and you DO lose your right to them if behave with them irresponsibly. But as with cars simply having laws on the books and having them enforced doesn't mean nothing bad is ever going to happen. You don't think there aren't any unlicensed drivers on the road do you or people w/ multiple DUIs driving around? I would be willing to be there are a hell of a lot more then illegal gun owners.

As evidenced by your posts on the issue and despite that you say you what they two treated the same, you in fact DO view guns differently then cars. There is a fundamental disconnect in your head where I would guess that the many automobile deaths that occur in a week barely registers as an atrocity compared to the relatively few (occasionaly if any) gun related deaths that occur in the same time period.

Like it or not comparing guns and cars IS apples to apples and the fact that you place great ire on the the statistcally less dangerous of the two shows your irrationality on the issue.

 

[KittenKoder]

In 1998, 30,708 Americans were killed with firearms - in homicides, suicides and accidents. In comparison, 33,651 Americans were killed in the Korean War and 58,148 Americans were killed in the Vietnam War. [19]

In 1998 alone, licensed firearms dealers sold an estimated 4.4 million guns, 1.7 million of which were handguns.[20]

Sales of handguns per adult are now roughly twice the level of 40 years ago.[21]

Of all accidental fatalities involving firearms, 71% involve handguns.[22]

Finally, you may want to consider one more statistic...

In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada, 213 in Germany and 9,390 in the United States.[23]

Now, what is the TOTAL murder and violent crimes sate again?

 

[Harry Dresden]

What do you expect them to do? I mean really, are you one of these people who would hole up in your cabin and shoot it out with the authorities? Or is that just a fantasy scenario? Because our firearms owners are reasonable, law-abiding people they didn't act like crazed nutters and hole up to shoot it out. They complied with the law.

So, again, what would you have our law-abiding, responsible firearms owners do? Invade Parliament House and take the PM hostage?

Thanks for the slagging off in your post, sheep indeed. Anyway keep playing your fantasy scenario about resisting the government, but don't forget to get in touch with reality now and again.

you bet your fucking ass i would,they want what i have,they can have them bullets first....after all i would be just doing what they trained me to do....the difference Di is your people just rolled over and said here take em,one incident with one crazy basterd,and you roll over,no resistance no bitching no nothing,at that time the ONLY Aussies willing to stand up for your rights was the farmers and ranchers....WHERE THE FUCK WERE THE REST OF YOU?

 

[Diuretic]

you bet your fucking ass i would,they want what i have,they can have them bullets first....after all i would be just doing what they trained me to do....the difference Di is your people just rolled over and said here take em,one incident with one crazy basterd,and you roll over,no resistance no bitching no nothing,at that time the ONLY Aussies willing to stand up for your rights was the farmers and ranchers....WHERE THE FUCK WERE THE REST OF YOU?

The scenario of the one individual against the combined power of the state. Ah, how romantic. How fucking stupid as well. It may be an enjoyable fantasy but that's it, a fantasy. Not that I'd wish anyone to come after you Harry but just a bit of advice, unless you want to end up full of gummint bullets or in a gummint prison, just hand them over

Now, as for your farmers and - we don't have "ranchers" here, they could be pastoralists you're referring to - they turned up just like everyone else. I have no idea where you have this idea that they stood up to the government. They're law-abiding, reasonable people, not wild-eyed crazed gun-nuts, so they complied with law even though I'm sure many of them didn't agree with it. But those crazy realists are just like that