National anti-gun violence program (Project Safe Neighborhoods) largely successful, MSU finds

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://news.msu.edu/story/7080

National anti-gun violence program largely successful, MSU finds

Contact: Andy Henion, University Relations, Office: [phone], Cell: [phone], [e-mail]; Edmund McGarrell, Criminal Justice, Office: [phone]

Published: Nov. 09, 2009

EAST LANSING, Mich. — Project Safe Neighborhoods – a community-based policing effort launched in 2001 – has been largely successful in its goal of reducing violent crime, according to an analysis by Michigan State University, the national research and training partner of the federal initiative.

And, as an offshoot of the program, the U.S. Department of Justice recently awarded MSU $1 million in stimulus funding to expand a research and training program designed to eliminate illegal drug markets.

“One of the dynamics driving violent crime in the United States is open-air drug markets,” said Ed McGarrell, lead researcher on the project and professor and director of MSU’s School of Criminal Justice. “There’s also a harmful community effect where this drug activity tends to create a lot of fear among local residents.”

The Justice Department started Project Safe Neighborhoods eight years ago to reduce the level of gun violence across the country. Federal officials chose MSU’s renowned criminal justice faculty to train local, state and federal law enforcement personnel on cutting-edge enforcement and prevention practices and to research and continually refine the community policing program.

The initiative stresses involvement from community groups and intervention into the lives of potential gun-crime victims and perpetrators, with possible assistance for vocational training, drug treatment and other needs, McGarrell said. The program is coordinated by the 94 U.S. Attorney offices nationwide.

In the 26 cities where the program was implemented rigorously, violent crime dropped by an average of 13 percent from 2000 to 2006, according to MSU’s analysis. The 38 cities that did not implement the program thoroughly saw violent crime increase by an average of 8 percent.

…

[Tim01]

1. Drug dealers don't like to operate in areas where they are being harassed. So they move.

They go someplace else and do the same thing.

[eqfan592]

3. Interesting point.

I wonder if there was any increase in surrounding areas that went along with the decrease. If so, then the true effectiveness of this program would be in question.

[Tim01]

25. We saw this exact same effect in my town.

The end result was the drug dealers were pushed to the really poor areas outside of the town limits where people didn't complain as much. And when a few of the poor, uneducated, inhabitants of that area did complain it didn't get the same response as an outraged judge or council member.
Really, most people are satisfied if the crime is driven to the poor areas and kept out of the nice areas.And yeah, the crime rate in the "target" areas goes down. Victory!

[aikoaiko]

2. I look forward to reading the details of the report.

Thanks for posting. It makes sense.

[X_Digger]

4. You mean guns aren't the cause of violence?!? Surely you jest..

Seriously, though, nice to see a multi-dimensional approach to solving the problem of crime.

[jgraz]

6. More importantly, guns aren't the *solution* to violence

As is so often preached on this group.

[X_Digger]

9. If you address the root causes, +/- guns won't matter..

Until that point, though, restricting guns only to those who are least likely to abide by the rules doesn't make a lot of sense.

Solution? Nope.. counter? Frequently. As a last resort for those who find themselves confronted with the threat of bodily harm? Definitely.

[jgraz]

11. Almost a tautology

Of course if you get rid of the root causes of crime, you'd have no crime. But easy access to firearms isn't what made the difference in this story. Sensible policing and community involvement did.

[benEzra]

16. It wasn't harassing lawful gun owners that made a difference, either. (n/t)

[jgraz]

17. Oh please. Why do these discussions always result in the gunnies playing the victim?

Sensible gun laws are not "harassment". Part of the reason we have such trouble regulating deadly weapons is whining whenever any policy is proposed.

[friendly_iconoclast]

23. What 'trouble regulating deadly weapons'? The murder and violent crime rate is declining.

Were they increasing, you might have a point.

Since said crime rate has declined while gun laws have gotten less restrictive and far more guns are in the hands of the public, your assertion is either impossible to prove or actually incorrect.

[jgraz]

24. Someday, we should talk about causation vs correlation

[friendly_iconoclast]

28. Even if the decline in the various crime rates were not caused by more gun ownership,

it certainly would be an argument against the need for more restriction on guns.

Certainly, crimes (sometimes horrible ones, vide Fort Hood) are committed with guns, just as they are sometimes used
effectively in defense. Good or bad, accounts of both should be posted here.

But the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. The reports of gun use seen in the Gungeon, whether good or bad, are usually meant as propaganda for one point of view or another.

So long as said reports are accurate, I welcome them. Even the sensationalist or inaccurate ones can be usefully picked apart

[jgraz]

30. Wrong again.

How do you know the crime rate wouldn't be one-fifth what it is today if we had certain restrictions on guns? Highway death rates have also been dropping. Does that mean we don't need any more restrictions on drunk driving?

The real statistic, though, is not the crime rate, but the gun death rate. Access to firearms is by definition a factor in this.

[friendly_iconoclast]

35. The laws against drunk driving are just that. Not aimed at *sober* drivers

because they might, some point in the future, drink and drive.

The problem is in some areas (Massachusetts for one), repeat DUI offenders often get off without more jail time, or simply
drive without a license until they get some jail time.

Much like people who use guns illegally, in other words.

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. It may sound trite, but sober divers don't drive drunk...

...so why penalize them for the actions of the drunks? Part of the reason that the drunk driving rate down is

sensible policing and community involvement, like making it clear that it's not kosher to drive while inebriated.

Yet we still have the hardcore repeat offenders, who are not penalized nearly enough.

[jgraz]

39. That's a different discussion. The analogy was to causation, which you are unable to demonstrate

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. I argued no causation, The two trends may be coincidental.

What I argue is that the two trends (coincidental OR causal), taken together weaken the argument for more controls.

I also argued that if gun crime is to be considered in the same arena as drunk driving, the non-offenders
aren't the problem, and a small minority of recidivist drunk drivers (like a similarly small minority of gun law violators) cause most of the problems.

Community education and prevention seems to be working in both cases, and imprisonment should be seen as mandatory for recidivists of both types.

[Euromutt]

41. Do I detect a double standard?

Why yes, I believe I do! You argue that we can't dismiss gun control restrictions as ineffective when they don't result in a reduction in violent crime, because it can't be proved that crime would not have increased absent the measure. But you also argue (in other threads) that studies on the number of defensive gun uses are invalid because it can't be proved that the crimes would have been completed absent the DGU. Isn't that convenient?

We do actually have some evidence, though, namely what happened after the 1994 ban on scary-looking semi-automatic firearms and full-capacity magazines lapsed. Five years later, rates of violent crime and homicide have not returned to pre-1994 levels. In fact, they haven't risen at all.

The real statistic, though, is not the crime rate, but the gun death rate.

Ah yes. I seem to recall a thread not so very long ago (around the time of your previous foray into the Guns forum, in fact) in which I asked you repeatedly to explain why this should be the case. And every time, you refused to even acknowledge the question, let alone provide a satisfactory answer. Care to try to answer it this time round?

[eqfan592]

43. Nailed it Euromutt.

In fact, the the ONLY possible way to monitor the effectiveness of gun control laws is to monitor their impact on the overall crime rate (especially the violent crime rate) and not with only the firearm crime rate. Saying "If I take X away, and fewer bad Y's happen with X, then everything worked out great!" Just doesn't make a lot of sense, because those numbers just don't exist in a vacuum. So if you say "If I take X away, and while there are fewer bad Y's done with X, the overall number of Y's has gone up/gone down/remained the same" you can truly evaluate the effectiveness of a measure.

After all, the point isn't just to put an end to gun violence, but violence in general. Otherwise the violent people in the nation will simply move from guns to something else, and we'll still be right back where we started, but now less able to defend ourselves. Given the failure of measures such as the AWB to truly impact the violent crime rate, I think it's obvious that we must move on to a different, more direct approach to violent crime.

[Euromutt]

46. My apologies, it was different statistic

In the thread I was thinking of (this one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x261945) you, jgraz, asserted that international comparisons of suicide rates were invalid, and that we should only look at comparisons between American states. This was the assertion I asked you four times to justify, which you refused to do.

But here we have a very similar situation, in which you assert that comparisons of overall violent crime or homicide rates are not valid, and that instead we should only look at the gun death rate. And so I ask the same question: why?

Why are certain statistical comparisons invalid, other than that they contradict your hypothesis? Every gun control measure has been sold to the American electorate on the claim that it would increase public safety by reducing the violent crime rate in general, and the homicide rate in particular. That, then, surely, is the standard by which which we should measure the effectiveness of such measures. After all, if we restrict private ownership of firearms, and a reduction in firearm crimes is accompanied by a concomitant increase in violent offenders using blades, bludgeons and "personal force" to assault, rob, and kill private citizens who might have been able to defend themselves against their assailants had they possessed a firearm, then public safety has not been increased, has it?

Similarly, if a reduction in firearm suicides is accompanied by an increase in suicides by hanging, BASE jumping without a parachute, and throwing oneself in front of oncoming trains, then the gun control measures have failed to reduce suicide. (That's taking it as read that the state has a legitimate role to play in reducing suicide by depriving the suicidal of some means to off themselves. And before you pull out your "Like most gun lovers, your attitude toward suicide and depression is appalling" chickenshit, refute my response at the end of this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=261945&mesg_id=263183
While you're at it, try answering the questions I asked you four times, which you were too fucking yellow to even acknowledge.

[jgraz]

47. Statistics are invalid when you can't clearly establish a causal connection

Gun control is just that: control of guns. Its goal should be as specific as possible so that we can track its effectiveness. If the goal is to reduce crime in general, that's a much harder connection to establish than reduction of gun deaths.


And you still don't understand the basic fact of those suicide statistics. Non-gun suicides are almost equal between high- and low-gun-ownership states. It's only the gun suicides that show the dramatic increase. Again, the causal connection is easier to establish than it is with unrelated studies of multiple countries.

[Euromutt]

50. That's the reasoning of the drunk guy looking for his keys under the street light

You know the joke, right? The drunk guy's dropped his house keys in a dark alley, but he's looking for them under the street light thirty feet away because there's more light there.

In this case, you're arguing that we should measure the effectiveness of gun control measures only by data on gun deaths because that's what we can readily ascertain (it's "under the streetlight"), even though it's not a measure of increased public safety (the "keys"). It may be more difficult to look at violent crime rates (particularly homicides) and establish causal relationships, but that's what gun control measures are marketed as doing: lowering violent crime in general. You can't control for confounding factors simply by ignoring them! (Yes, I realize that is exactly what public health researchers do, but that doesn't make it good science.) If you do, it becomes gun control purely for gun control's sake, which may serve the desires of hoplophobes, but does not demonstrably do anything to actually make anyone safer.

Ultimately, your argument--and that applies to both iterations, both regarding violent crime and suicide--is circular. The pro-RKBA camp points to data that seems to contradict your conclusions and argues, not unreasonably, that this is indicative of factors other than prevalence of firearms that may influence the rates of violent crime and suicide, and you dismiss these data precisely because they are indicative of confounding factors. Frankly, this comes off as a rather lame attempt to justify cherry-picking only those data that support your argument. And that's just not kosher.

[jgraz]

54. There is nothing more cherry-picked than the violent crime stats used by the pro-gun crowd

We've had these arguments before. The studies count burglaries as violent crime, but ignore suicides and accidental shootings. Some count drug offenses. All of these data are driven by factors other than how many firearms are in the general population. And none of them measure what we're actually working for.

If we enact a gun control measure, and the number of burglaries goes down, did we make anyone safer? We don't really know, because the number of burglaries is at best tangentially related to the number of guns in circulation. What we'd really want to measure is what percentage of those burglars was armed (a much more difficult task). But it's hard to disagree that someone being robbed by an unarmed burglar is safer than if that criminal were armed.

Even if the "criminals" re-armed with other weapons, the gun control measure may still be successful. An armed robbery with a knife is marginally safer than an armed robbery with a handgun. A suicide attempt with pills is marginally safer than an attempt with a firearm.

That's why the metric of gun deaths is important. It measures exactly the intended consequences of any gun policy. It works on the other side as well: showing that an assault weapons ban did nothing to reduce gun deaths is a much more effective argument than showing it did nothing to reduce burglaries.

[SteveM]

52. Yep. Happens all the time (nt)

[Euromutt]

44. Clearly we should, because you lack basic understanding of the two

As you should be aware, correlation does not imply causation, and to claim otherwise is to commit a post/cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. However, the fact that correlation is not a sufficient condition for causation does not mean that it is not a necessary condition.

For there to be a causal relationship between the number of firearms in private hands on the one hand, and the amount of violent crime on the other, you at least have to be able to establish that there is a correlation between the two. This is, however, not the case: the number of firearms in private hands has continued to rise, even as violent crime, including homicide, plummeted by 50% or more from 1991 to 2000, before bottoming out and remaining at roughly the same level since. The lapsing of the AWB was followed by a slight uptick in violent crime, but this proved to be temporary, and violent crime is presently back to levels not seen since the 1960s.

Speaking of the 1960s, the number of handguns in private hands, even relative to the size of the population, has been increasing steadily since the mid-1960s, while the homicide rate in that same period has risen and fallen repeatedly, and the suicide rate has fluctuated slightly. There simply is no correlation.

In a nutshell, it's not the number of firearms in private hands that causes the violent crime rate to rise or drop; we must seek the causes elsewhere, and therefore also the solutions. But because the laws of a free society--which the United States is supposed to be--should, in case of doubt, err on the side of leaving its citizens more freedom, this fact does not work in favor of gun control.

[jgraz]

77. You really should pick up a basic text on social science methodology

It would make future conversations go much more smoothly.

The problem with your assertion is the number of factors that feed into the crime rate and the varying definitions used by the researchers. No one agrees on all the causes or even the meaning of the phrase "violent crime". The reason the pro-gun crowd likes to use violent crime statistics is that the conclusions are so nebulous that any position can be (superficially) supported.

When presented with a more direct and straightforward study (e.g. the state-by-state comparison of gun suicides), you really have no answer (other than to cloud the issue with irrelevant and unrelated statistics from other countries).

Setting out to reduce gun deaths is a much more measurable goal. If we successfully reduce the number of semi-automatic weapons in civilian hands and yet gun deaths remain flat, we know that an assault-weapons ban is not useful. If, on the other hand, we reduce the number of handguns in private homes and gun suicides go down, we know this is a successful social initiative.

In either of these cases, throwing out stats on the burglary rate or the number of drug crimes -- especially from other countries -- is useless and only serves to confuse the issue.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. What do you propose that we don't already have?

[benEzra]

33. Oh, please. I was responding to this statement, which I happen to agree with:

But easy access to firearms isn't what made the difference in this story. Sensible policing and community involvement did.

Your statement there is entirely correct, and is common ground that we can all agree on.

It is not necessary to play Don Quixote against lawful gun ownership in order to address criminal gun violence.

[taurus145]

49. Because honest gun owners are the victims

Honest gun owners abide by the laws passed.

It matters not one whit to the criminals that something else they're doing is illegal.

[gorfle]

51. The right to keep and bear arms is not related to crime.

The right to keep and bear arms is about the citizenry having the ability to resist tyranny. The citizenry would need this ability regardless of the crime rate.

[jgraz]

55. Total crap

No, your gun is not there so you can play Red Dawn. This is a ridiculous, dangerous, ahistorical assertion that deserves to be laughed at every time it's posted.

The main problem with this fantasy is that it leaves the definition of tyranny up to whatever crackpot is currently pissed off at life. All you need to do is look at the Teabaggers to see the insanity of this belief. To you, "tyranny" may be black helicopters in league with lizard-aliens. To others, "tyranny" is the public option in health care.

Do you really want to encourage idiot Teabaggers to start shooting people when the public option passes?

[gorfle]

56. Not total crap.

No, your gun is not there so you can play Red Dawn. This is a ridiculous, dangerous, ahistorical assertion that deserves to be laughed at every time it's posted.

My position is supported by contemporary documents of the founders.

I ask you: Why do you think our founders choose a decentralized military system instead of a centralized one under the control of the federal government?

I ask you: Why do you think the founders specifically enumerated a right of the people to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed upon by the federal government?

The main problem with this fantasy is that it leaves the definition of tyranny up to whatever crackpot is currently pissed off at life. All you need to do is look at the Teabaggers to see the insanity of this belief. To you, "tyranny" may be black helicopters in league with lizard-aliens. To others, "tyranny" is the public option in health care.

Do you really want to encourage idiot Teabaggers to start shooting people when the public option passes?

You are asking me to define a revolution. This is virtually impossible to do. If one or two people get pissed off at the government and engage in armed revolt, we haul call them McVeighs and Hasans and haul them off to prison.

As I have said many times before, armed revolt probably follows a bell curve. At one end of the curve you have the fringe that jumps to violence before everyone else. In the middle you have a critical mass. At the other end of the curve you have the opposite fringe who refuses to engage in violence until well after nearly everyone else has.

The last time there was a revolution in this country it involved millions of people who believed that the system no longer represented them and they wanted to secede from the Union.

No one can say what the spark for rebellion might be. It could be the public option, who knows. It's probably not as far fetched as, say, a tax on tea.

[jgraz]

58. You're confusing state militia vs individual arms

Yes, the state militias were preserved, in part, to deter a military takeover of the federal government. They were also preserved to allow southern states to continue to use their militias to put down slave revolts, but that's another discussion.

What wasn't preserved -- and is explicitly spoken against in Federalist 29 -- is an individual right of armed insurrection. Unless the federal government is overthrown, any "revolution" against it is illegal and not supported by the Second Amendment.

If you want to be a bulwark against a military coup, good for you. Go to your nearest state militia recruitment office and enlist.

[gorfle]

59. What state militias?

You're confusing state militia vs individual arms

One small problem: There are no longer any state militias as our founders envisioned. Thus all that is left is the individual and his arms. No doubt this is specifically why the second amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, rather than the right of the militia. They knew the militias could be usurped, and in fact they were.

Yes, the state militias were preserved, in part, to deter a military takeover of the federal government.

Glad we agree.

What wasn't preserved -- and is explicitly spoken against in Federalist 29 -- is an individual right of armed insurrection. Unless the federal government is overthrown, any "revolution" against it is illegal and not supported by the Second Amendment.

Question for you: Who, specifically, is going to do the overthrowing of the federal government?

If you want to be a bulwark against a military coup, good for you. Go to your nearest state militia recruitment office and enlist.

There have been no such recruitment offices since 1903.

[jgraz]

60. Sad day for you.

If you were a real Second Amendment advocate, you'd be hopping mad at this lack of state militias. I suggest you start calling your state legislators.

[gorfle]

61. Indeed I am.

If you were a real Second Amendment advocate, you'd be hopping mad at this lack of state militias.

Indeed I am, at least, disappointed. It's not a terrible setback, however, as long as the people still retain the right to keep and bear arms.

Though the militias are gone, usurped by the federal government, the people are still here, and free, and armed, just as our founders intended.

Now, if you will be so kind as to answer my question from my last post:

What wasn't preserved -- and is explicitly spoken against in Federalist 29 -- is an individual right of armed insurrection. Unless the federal government is overthrown, any "revolution" against it is illegal and not supported by the Second Amendment.

Question for you: Who, specifically, is going to do the overthrowing of the federal government?

[jgraz]

62. Unless "the people" are under the command and control of state commanders, it's just mob rule

A "free and armed" populace is not what the founder intended. Why do you think they included the first part of the Second Amendment (the part that all the pro-gun folks want to pretend doesn't exist).

WRT who would overthrow the government: the fear at the time was a coup by the federal troops. Many of the founders were against the US maintaining a standing army.

[gorfle]

63. You still didn't answer the question.

A "free and armed" populace is not what the founder intended. Why do you think they included the first part of the Second Amendment (the part that all the pro-gun folks want to pretend doesn't exist).

I certainly don't pretend it doesn't exist. Let's take a look at the second amendment:

"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."

The founders here indicate that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

First, let us note here that in 18th century vernacular, "regulated" means "well functioning". Note, for example, that highly accurate clocks of the era were called "regulators".

So the militias are necessary to the security of a free state. Why? Because they represent the decentralized military forces that are loyal to the states and not the federal government. They represent the decentralized military forces that were intended to replace, or at least be able to counter, federal infantry power.

The amendment then goes on to say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Why? Because the militias are made up of the people, and the founders clearly indicate here that the arms are to be reposited in the keeping of the people, not the militias. Clearly the founders distrusted even the governmental institution of militias, and chose for the people to be the final bulwark against tyranny, which is why the arms are conveyed into their keeping and not the militia, or the state, or the federal government.

WRT who would overthrow the government: the fear at the time was a coup by the federal troops. Many of the founders were against the US maintaining a standing army.

Yes, this is true. And in the event of such a coup by the federal government, who would then overthrow that federal government?

[jgraz]

64. I know who wouldn't overthrow an illegal government

You and your peashooter.

The idea of well-regulated state militias is that these people would be trained as soldiers and have a chance in hell of fighting against an illegal federal coup. A random bunch of middle-aged fat guys with handguns ain't gonna do shit.

[gorfle]

65. But who /would/ overthrow an illegal government?

I know who wouldn't overthrow an illegal government You and your peashooter.

The idea of well-regulated state militias is that these people would be trained as soldiers and have a chance in hell of fighting against an illegal federal coup. A random bunch of middle-aged fat guys with handguns ain't gonna do shit.

Question for you: Since there aren't any well-regulated state militias anymore, who, then, would overthrow an illegal government today?

[eqfan592]

66. Not to mention....

...the fact that even civilians with no formal training have proven time and time again the effectiveness of guerrilla warfare when they are pressed into it.

EDIT: And that's not even taking into account the fact that MANY more people besides "fat middle aged white men" own firearms, and many many more would take them up should the need arise in that sort of situation.

[jgraz]

68. Just ask the Iraqis how well that worked

They had trained fighters and military-grade weapons. They killed around 4000 of us, we leveled their country and killed over a million of them.

I doubt the Teabagger Rebellion would turn out much differently.

[gorfle]

71. In the end, who will still be standing?

In the end, we'll be gone, and they will have won.

[jgraz]

73. Newsflash: they've already won

And no amount of senseless gun deaths will change that.

[gorfle]

78. Complete non-sequitur.

Newsflash: they've already won And no amount of senseless gun deaths will change that.

This is a complete non-sequitur.

When the Iraqis and Afghans succeed in driving us out, it will have been lots of gun, explosive, and other deaths brought about that change.

[jgraz]

81. Ah. I didn't realize which "they" you were referring to.

In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, we will be gone and they will have gotten massacred. Not exactly a "win" in anybody's book.

[gorfle]

83. I guess...

In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, we will be gone and they will have gotten massacred. Not exactly a "win" in anybody's book.

I guess you're one of those folks who chalk up the Vietnam war as an American victory, too. :eyes:

[jgraz]

84. War is not a football game.

It's possible for both sides to lose. In fact, that's the usual outcome.

[gorfle]

85. I wonder.

I wonder if the Vietnamese feel like they lost.

[jgraz]

86. I wonder

If you have a fundamental ability to empathize with the victims of a hostile invasion.

[gorfle]

87. Of course, who wouldn't?

I wonder If you have a fundamental ability to empathize with the victims of a hostile invasion.

I would hope so.

[jgraz]

69. You're also forgetting one very important fact

If the military overthrew the Obama government, the vast majority of your NRA buddies would be fighting on the side of the coupsters.

[gorfle]

74. That would be speculation, not fact.

You're also forgetting one very important fact If the military overthrew the Obama government, the vast majority of your NRA buddies would be fighting on the side of the coupsters.

Bear in mind that the need for rebellion is not just in case the military overthrows the government. It could also be if the government uses its military to oppress the people. The reason why the founders wanted a decentralized military system was NOT because they feared the centralized military, it's because they feared a centralized government with access to a military! They feared tyranny, because they had just clawed their way out from under it!

I'm not really interested in getting into speculative debates over who might rebel or for what reason.

I'm merely stating the Constitutional and founding intent for why the people were to be armed - to be able to rebel against whatever tyranny The People felt it necessary to rebel against.

[jgraz]

75. It's damn sensible speculation

Or are you saying that the NRA is a bastion of pro-Obama sentiment? :rofl:

[gorfle]

79. As I said.

As I said, this debate is not about the possible motives of rebels. It is about the Constitutional basis and justification for the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

I am repudiating your claim that, "This is a ridiculous, dangerous, ahistorical assertion that deserves to be laughed at every time it's posted."

I'm not going to follow you in your attempts to change the subject.

[jgraz]

67. If the US military decides to stage a coup, we're pretty much fucked.

As we've seen in Iraq, an armed citizenry can certainly make things inconvenient, but they're no match for Shock and Awe™.

[gorfle]

70. OK, then to recap.

You agree with me that the purpose of militias was to guard against federal tyranny.

You agree with me that those militias no longer exist, and that it would be down to The People to take up arms against such a tyranny.

I think it would be nice at this point for you to admit that you were wrong when you said, "This is a ridiculous, dangerous, ahistorical assertion that deserves to be laughed at every time it's posted."

So your response, now, is that in the face of tyranny The People should just lie down and take it and not bother fighting because it's too hard?

What do you think the founders - who specifically stated that the right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the federal government - would think about that?

I think they would think something like this:

""If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." — Samuel Adams

As we've seen in Iraq, an armed citizenry can certainly make things inconvenient

Inconvenient?!? They are well on their way to booting our butts out of there and Afghanistan as well, and the sooner the better. And these guys don't even have the advantage of destroying our home turf. Sure it's easy for us to wage war over their while our infrastructure here at home is almost completely safe from harm (save a skyscraper or two every decade or so). But imagine the havoc that a civil war at home would bring. It would be absolutely devastating in the worst way possible - it would hit the pocketbook! I think you highly underestimate the capability of people fighting for their homes.

But all of this is neither here nor there. It does not matter how effective you think The People would be at resisting tyranny. The question is this:

Did the founders intended for The People to be able to try?

The answer to this is clearly yes, or they would not have specifically enumerated the right of The People to keep and bear arms in the context of keeping free states.

[jgraz]

72. Two things

One: I'm not saying we lie down. I'm saying our current society is structured in such a way that we would have no sensible recourse. You want to fix that problem? Good on you. But accepting tens of thousands of firearm deaths per year to support a fantasy is not rational behavior.

Two: You assume that all your NRA buddies will be fighting on the side of FREEDOM. This is certainly not the case. If the military staged a coup against Obama, you can bet that most of the pro-gun folks would be standing in line to help with the Great Liberal Purge of 2010.

[gorfle]

76. No, I most certainly do NOT assume that.

One: I'm not saying we lie down. I'm saying our current society is structured in such a way that we would have no sensible recourse. You want to fix that problem? Good on you. But accepting tens of thousands of firearm deaths per year to support a fantasy is not rational behavior.

First of all, as I said the debate is not whether you or I think The People would be effective at resisting tyranny or not.

The debate is: Is this what the founders intended for the people to be able to try to do or not.

Whether it is a fantasy or not, it is a fantasy that the founders believed in, because it was no fantasy for them - they had just overthrown the most powerful military of the day with vastly inferior forces, and in no small part to the credit of citizen militia.

Quite simply, it is a fact that the founders intended the citizenry, through state militias, to be able to resist oppression both from without and within. Whether you think it is a fantasy that it could actually work or not is beside the point. The simple truth is that apathy is a far more serious problem to overcome than lack of arms. The real fantasy may well be in thinking you could ever get people to look away from the television long enough to even realize they were being oppressed. But none of this is relevant to the Constitutional justification for being armed.

Two: You assume that all your NRA buddies will be fighting on the side of FREEDOM. This is certainly not the case. If the military staged a coup against Obama, you can bet that most of the pro-gun folks would be standing in line to help with the Great Liberal Purge of 2010

Make no mistake, I make NO ASSUMPTIONS that people who engage in revolutions will do so for pure reasons. Most of the revolutions in history end up transferring power from one set of dictators to another. Having the ability to revolt does not mean that people will do so wisely. No doubt our founders were well aware of this, and they STILL preferred an armed citizenry so that should they find themselves oppressed they would have the means, through force of arms, to at least try for something better.

[jgraz]

80. Your image of the "Founding Fathers" is that of a mob of bloodthirsty idiots.

I think, in reality, they would be horrified at the way their Second Amendment has devolved into an ineffective collection of unorganized private weaponry. They certainly did not intend for the RKBA to enable little Jimmy to shoot his sister while allowing for the easy overthrow of democracy by the military.

If the pro-gun crowd were really sincere in their beliefs, they would be marching to restart the state militias. I'm strongly in favor of that, not because I want a defense against a military coup (though that would be nice), but because I think that competently trained and disciplined gun owners will be far safer for the rest of us.

[gorfle]

82. Simply incorrect.

Your image of the "Founding Fathers" is that of a mob of bloodthirsty idiots.

How so? I see them as a group of wise men who had just lead an armed revolution against a tyrannical government who were inspired to make sure that the people of the new government they were creating would have the means to do exactly as they had just finished doing should the need arise again.

I don't see this as bloodthirsty nor idiotic. I see it as wise and prudent.

I think, in reality, they would be horrified at the way their Second Amendment has devolved into an ineffective collection of unorganized private weaponry. They certainly did not intend for the RKBA to enable little Jimmy to shoot his sister while allowing for the easy overthrow of democracy by the military.

First of all, modern civilian small arms are hardly "ineffective" - they are very nearly as effective as modern military small arms, which is precisely what the founders intended.

Secondly, firearms existed for nearly 500 years prior to the writing of the Constitution. Pistols very similar to ones contemporary to the founders' era existed for nearly 200 years prior to the writing of the Constitution. Almost certainly little Jimmy shot his sister well before the founders formed our nation. Almost certainly Jud robbed Bud with a firearm well before the founders formed our nation. Almost certainly they were well aware of the nefarious purposes that firearms could be put to use committing.

If the pro-gun crowd were really sincere in their beliefs, they would be marching to restart the state militias. I'm strongly in favor of that, not because I want a defense against a military coup (though that would be nice), but because I think that competently trained and disciplined gun owners will be far safer for the rest of us.

Myself, rather than chase off after an entity that has been gone for over a hundred years, I'm more interested in preserving my rights as they exist right now.

In any case, if you want to belong to a militia, there is no need to "restart the state militias". Many States still provide for militias in their Constitutions, and the federal government provides for the Unorganized Militia which all able-bodied men aged 17-45 belong to if they are not already in the Organized Militia (National Guard).

[gorfle]

88. So, in conclusion...

Total crap

No, your gun is not there so you can play Red Dawn. This is a ridiculous, dangerous, ahistorical assertion that deserves to be laughed at every time it's posted.

I think we can see from my rebuttals below that my assertion that, "The right to keep and bear arms is about the citizenry having the ability to resist tyranny." is in fact not total crap, and is not ridiculous, dangerous, nor ahistorical.

[jgraz]

89. Posting a reply does not automatically win an argument

The idea that the founding fathers thought Bubba and his popgun would defeat a military coup is ridiculous, dangerous and ahistorical.

There, I posted a rebuttal. I guess I win. :eyes:

[gorfle]

90. Of course it doesn't.

Posting a reply does not automatically win an argument

Of course not. But my rebuttals from post #56 on down sure do. Ultimately you conceded every point except the effectiveness of The People in rebellion.

The idea that the founding fathers thought Bubba and his popgun would defeat a military coup is ridiculous, dangerous and ahistorical.

Well then I suggest you start reading again from #56, as well as some history books.

First of all, as I said, the foundering fathers were not just concerned about military coups. What they were mostly concerned about was federal tyranny, and that the federal government would use its military as a tool of oppression.

Second of all, "Bubba and his popgun", as you put it in your attempt to downplay their effectiveness, had just played a major role in winning the nation they founded.

Third of all, my "popgun" is virtually the same as small arm used by most of the world's military forces. The AK47 is the most copied, widespread military arm in the world. So much for "popgun".

You already agreed with me that the founders intended for there to be a decentralized military system to defend against tyranny.

You already agreed with me that the militias of the founders' era no longer exist.

You do not disagree with me that the sole people left to uphold the founders vision are The People, whose right to keep and bear arms they specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

The only thing you have to offer is that you don't think The People would be effective at defeating tyranny.

And to that, as I have already said, it does not matter how effective you or I think The People would be at rebelling against tyranny. What matters is did the founders intend for the people to do so?

Question for you: Why do you think the founders said the right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and not the militia?

Question for you: When Thomas Jefferson said, ""No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.", why do you think he said that?

Question for you: When George mason said, "I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Why do you think he said that?

Question for you: When James Madison said, "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.", what advantage do you think he was speaking of?

Question for you: When Alexander Hamilton said, "If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens.", do you think Mr. Hamilton thought The People could triumph over government military forces?

Question for you: When Noah Webster said, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.", do you think Mr. Webster thought The People could triumph over government military forces?

[rd_kent]

13. WHO preaches that? Pleased name names of those who have said that.

[jgraz]

18. Every one of the "Grandma shoots trespasser" posts preaches it

That's really the point of those posts, isn't it? If only everyone had a gun, there would be no crime.

[rd_kent]

20. No, that is NOT the point of those posts at all.

But again, thats YOUR opinion of what those posts mean. Please provide proof of someone who actually posted or believes that guns are the solution to violence. I can wait, no worries.....

[AtheistCrusader]

32. They are when violence is applied to me.

Well, ONE gun would be.

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. Your duty is clear then.- Get busy providing examples to prove your point

Otherwise, it's so much argument by assertion.

And skip the bafflegab, mmkay? You don't have near enough the skills in excessive anti-gun verbiage that certain other
posters are famous for.

[spin]

26. Some posters do praise the legitimate use of firearms...

because many anti-gun posters refuse to believe that firearms are ever used successfully to deter crime. It does happen and it's not really uncommon.

But in reality, most gun owners never have to use their weapons for legitimate self defense. Thank God!

My daughter did stop an intruder breaking into our home by pointing a large caliber revolver at him. No shots were fired. He ran.

My mother in the 1920s also stopped an attacker who rushed her when she was walking home from work by firing two shots over his head. Her attacker also ran. She lived in a rural area of Pennsylvania and no houses were in range of her shots.

Very few other gun owners I know have ever had to use their weapons for legitimate self defense.

So you might argue that statistically there is little reason to own a firearm and statistically you might be right. However, you can be on the bad end of statistics and having a firearm might save your life or save you from serious injury.

I can drive around for years without wearing a seat belt and statistically even if I get in an accident, I have a good chance of not being seriously injured. I have been driving for almost 50 years and have never been in an accident where a seat belt was truly important. I wear one because I can't predict what will happen. Tomorrow, I may be driving down a two lane highway and some fool might swerve into my lane and cause a head on accident.

You could argue that firearms are far more dangerous to my family then not owning one. In many cases that is true. However if I religiously follow the commonsense rules of handling firearms, I hopefully will eliminate or reduce that threat.

One time a friend was over to my house visiting. I showed him a new firearm and laid it down on a table. Occasionally, as we talked the subject would return to firearms. At the end of the night as he was leaving he laughed and mentioned that during the night, I had picked up the firearm and checked to see if it was loaded five times. I told him that if a firearm leaves your hand, you always check the damn thing in case when you pick it up just in case it decided to load itself. "Unloaded" firearms kill a lot of people.

Also remember that while all the adults who live in this house have concealed carry permits and carry, we don't reduce crime just because of that fact. We are NOT cops. We do not wander around town arresting drug dealers or flashing a roll of cash to tempt someone into attempting a robbery. We don't try to insult people to see if we can cause someone with anger management problems into attacking us. We are very polite and respectful and we will walk away from a fight, even if others will consider us cowards.

So the fact that we own guns does not reduce crime. That's not our objective. However, if some fool attacks us with no reason and attempts to hurt us, we plan to fight back with reasonable force. If the individual presents a truly serious danger and wants to severely hurt or possibly kill us, we plan to use lethal force in return.

Owning firearms is similar to wearing a seat belt in that owing a gun doesn't really prevent some violent crime just as wearing a seat belt doesn't prevent accidents. It is possible that in areas where firearm ownership is very common some crimes such as home invasions are reduced. The wise criminal merely waits until the owners are not home to enter.

Hopefully, we will walk down the path of live and never run into any incident where the use of our weapons is necessary. The aftereffects of a justified shooting are difficult emotionally and often financially. Still the aftereffects are better than being six feet under or physically damaged for life.

[friendly_iconoclast]

27. And the news reports of tragedies posted here aren't preaching?

But you are right about one thing:

The various reports of shootings from either side are posted por encourager les autres.

Look to statistics, not heartbreaking stories of tragedy via gun/true stories of home defense by stout citizens via gun (choose one according to taste), for the truth

[rd_kent]

34. Still waiting......

but I am sure you wont reply with an answer, not at least to the question at hand......

[rd_kent]

38. Still waiting......

[Euromutt]

45. Is that honestly what you think?

If so, you are so very mistaken.

Guns don't address the cause of crime; they merely enable a person to more effectively defend him- or herself from a violent assailant. Thus, they may help in preventing a crime from being completed, but they cannot be counted on to prevent it from being initiated.

There is evidence that private firearms ownership has some deterrent effect, but there are ways around that. It's practically axiomatic among American criminologists, for example, that American burglars are reluctant to break into an occupied residence, and this is largely for fear of being shot. This doesn't prevent burglaries (the American residential burglary rate is not remarkably lower than that of other wealthy industrialized nations), but it does result in American burglars greatly preferring unoccupied residences as targets.

The argument posited by the majority of pro-RKBA posters on this forum, myself included, is that increased restrictions on private firearms ownership will not do anything to reduce violent crime, while they would deprive generally "law-abiding"* citizens of the most effective means of defending themselves against violent crime. I don't think you'll find too many people claiming that increased gun ownership would be effective in deterring violent crime overall; after all, drug dealers know their competitors are armed, but that doesn't stop them from engaging in turf wars.

No, instead the argument is that gun control, by focusing on the means of violent crime, is a distraction from addressing the causes. Countries like Switzerland, Finland and Norway have lax gun laws and high levels of gun ownership compared to the rest of Europe, and yet they do not have notably high levels of violent crime. Why? Because they are--again, comparatively speaking--prosperous, socio-economically homogenous societies; they don't have urban underclasses, largely composed of ethnic minorities, living in undesirable neighborhoods with high rates of unemployment and poverty. They have no equivalent of Baltimore, Oakland, Compton, Parisian banlieues, Amsterdam Zuid-Oost, London's Lambeth, etc.

Guns aren't the solution, but they aren't the problem either. The pro-RKBA posters are well aware of the fact that guns are used for unlawful purposes, but we conclude--based on the available evidence--that the ability they grant to law-abiding citizens to protect themselves from violent crime outweighs the social cost of their misuse. Moreover, even if this were not the case, given that the government has repeatedly rejected the responsibility for providing protection to individual citizens, it has thereby abdicated the authority to deprive them of the most effective means to protect themselves, and with current technology, guns are the most effective means. That why cops continue to carry them, despite the availability of pepper spray, tasers, etc.

* - By "law-abiding," I mean people who don't commit offenses that (threaten to) inflict material harm on another person. E.g. I don't consider someone who smokes marijuana to unwind as a threat to the common weal. I don't even have an issue with casual drug dealers (I knew a few in college), or even drug dealers in general if they didn't have a tendency to engage in gunfights with competitors, murder witnesses, that sort of thing.

[SteveM]

53. Not the point. But you are invested in another world-view...

The main reason for these posts is to show that a firearm is useful for self-defense, and not something to fear or make illegal. Self-defense is eminently anecdotal and not social policy with measurable social outcomes. Perhaps someone will be able to develop a model by which a "policy" of individual armament can be measured against a "desirable" social outcome -- reduction of murders, armed robbery, rape, etc. -- to determine if the policy caused the outcomes, but few are arguing that here.

But you seem to have a feet-in-concrete commitment to your "point." And it is your point.

[PavePusher]

37. Really?

None of the police officers had guns?

Guns weren't used on patrol?

Guns weren't used to enforce the laws and make arrests?



Pictures, or it didn't happen.

[gorfle]

57. Depends on your concept of "a solution"

If I am being mugged and I can shoot the mugger with my gun, then a gun has definitely been a solution to that immediate problem of violence.

When Hasan was shot down by Officer Munley, a gun was certainly the solution to that immediate problem of violence.

In fact for just about every mass shooting I can think of since Columbine, guns were the solution to those immediate problems of violence.

Do they address the problem of the fundamental violent nature of mankind? Of course not.

But no one really expects that problem will ever be solved. There have been people unable to control their violent urges since the beginning of time. It seems reasonable that there will always be such people. Sure, we can take steps to reduce the sense of desperation that many people have that seem to drive them to violence, but I doubt we will ever conquer the fundamental violent nature of man. Trying to cure man of being violent will likely be as successful as trying to get man to be celibate.

So as long as we continue to have violent people among us, guns will continue to provide a solution for stopping them.

[Lefty48197]

5. This is shocking!

"...The initiative stresses involvement from community groups and intervention into the lives of potential gun-crime victims and perpetrators, with possible assistance for vocational training, drug treatment and other needs, McGarrell said..."

You mean giving people an education to keep them out of poverty or giving them treatment for drug addiction can lead to a reduction in crime and violence?

[X_Digger]

10. Shocking to you, maybe..

.. we've been saying that here in the gungeon for a loooooooooong time.

[eqfan592]

12. Yep, and we get called lots of names for saying as much. (nt)

[spin]

19. When you post on a forum that is basically for liberal Democrats

you can expect to take heat when you express the view that one of their most loved causes is flawed by misconceptions and impractical.

It's easy to post pro-gun messages on a pro-gun forum. Everybody agrees with you. It's like a football team playing on its home field. The overwhelming number of fans in the stadium are rooting for you.

When you post pro-gun messages on a progressive Democratic forum, you are like the visiting team. It's challenging because the fans are loud and you will get called a lot of names. The home team has the attitude that you just don't walk into their house and say whatever you want.

But the future of the Democratic party and its goals are very important. It's sad that the Democratic Party embraces draconian gun control laws. Few liberal Democrats realize that RKBA is a very progressive idea. Few understand that gun control is based on racist ideas and even today is all too often designed to make sure that "those people" can't own firearms. Few liberal Democrats appreciate the importance of the 80 million gun owners and the fact that a good percentage of them are one issue voters and will show up at the polls to vote against any Democrat who favors draconian gun control. Few understand how these voters can turn a close election into a loss for a worthwhile Democratic candidate who is merely following the party's platform.

So when you get accused of having a small penis or being afraid of your shadow, look at it as an admission that the poster can't beat you on facts or logic and has to resort to insults to defend his position. You best response is to continue to post more facts and logic to back up your position and to be polite. Remember, you have the high ground. Therefore, there is no reason to insult a poster in return.

Many people read DU without ever posting just to see what this very loud voice of dedicated Democrats has to say on an issue. Many lurkers may find their way to the Gungeon and learn that not ALL Democrats hate guns and want to take guns away from gun owners. If they are one issue voters and support gun ownership above all else, they may leave DU and reconsider their position.

[eqfan592]

21. Good post! :)

Though you should see how ugly it can get promoting progressive/liberal ideals in a gun forum! Makes the DU'ers look like chumps when it comes to insults! :P

I will admit that I can get a bit insulting at times with people, but I do try to keep it in check. Not successfully all the time, but I try. But you're right. Our best bet is to keep hammering away with the information we have on hand, because that's really hitting them where it hurts.

Ya know, I don't know about any of you other regulars here, but I used to be a big support of the Brady Campaign some years back. I was a gun owner, but I took the Brady folks at their word that things like the AWB were good for us and had made our nation somehow safer. But after a while the logical side of my brain started to kick in, and I started to question things. I started to look at the data available on my own, and suddenly I realized that I had been way off the mark on the issue.

I really hope we can get more people around here to experience the same epiphany I did when it comes to this issue.

[rrneck]

29. Well said. nt

[spin]

7. Rather than passing a "feel good" law such as an assault weapons ban...

this approach to reducing gun violence actually accomplishes something and doesn't hurt Democrats at the polls.

[eqfan592]

8. Very true.

Though, as somebody else pointed out, it's possible this had more of an effect of de-localizing the crime instead of actually reducing it, but I doubt it was entirely that either, if it was at all.

Still, I'm also very glad to see people taking this approach to the problem.

[spin]

14. If the crime moves, you may have to move enforcement...

It's not easy or cheap, but it should save lives and reduce the homicide rate far more significantly than any "feel good" law. "Feel good" laws only serve to make citizens feel as if their elected representatives are interested in doing something to stop crime.

The "assault weapons" ban was a total failure. That's why it was allowed to sunset.

[eqfan592]

15. Couldn't agree more, on all points :) (nt)

[Euromutt]

42. "A qualified success"; I appreciate realistic assessments

This Project Safe Neighborhoods sounds pretty promising, at least within a limited scope of time and location, and I'm glad it's being pursued. At least it does actually try to address some of the socio-economic circumstances that create fertile ground for crime. I have to admit I'm skeptical whether something like this project can succeed in causing lasting reductions in violent crime overall, rather than in specific areas, but since it seems to be on the right track.

Of course, the most obvious way to get rid of "open air drug markets" and their attendant effects is to legalize and regulate drugs. It's not like we have "open air liquor markets," or "open air tobacco markets" complete with gun fights between rival bootlegging and cigarette-smuggling gangs.

[spin]

48. We seemed to have a lot of problems with gangs and guns during prohibition...

when we decided to fight a war on alcohol.

We didn't seem to learn any lessons from that time in our history.