Attempt At A Civil Discussion

[billh58]

I have recently posted in this forum, and have (for the most part) attempted to be both civil and persuasive. At times it is difficult to achieve both goals simultaneously, however, this post is aimed at total objectivity with emotions left on the side lines.

I have been doing some reading (albeit on the Internet) about the two sides of the RKBA and gun control issues, and have come to the conclusion that there is more common ground than extremists on both sides would have us believe.

I have picked out two articles relating to gun ownership and gun control that I find to be fairly objective in their portrayal of the current state-of-affairs in the United States:

http://newsbatch.com/guncontrol.htm

{Snip}

How many guns are there?

"According a 1994 Department of Justice survey, about 35% of American households own 192 million firearms of which handguns constituted 35% of the total. Polling data shows that the actual household ownership rate is higher but also that it declining slightly. Gun sales, has evidenced by Brady background check data, have significantly increased in 2008 and there are reports that they have increased further in 2009 based on concerns that a Democratic administration and Congress would bring in a new era of regulation. cbs Slightly less than half of gun owners own both handguns and shotguns or rifles. The typical gun owner is male, middle class, college educated and lives in a small town or rural area. Gun ownership varies greatly by region and there is a significant correlation between the percentage of handgun ownership and the rate of gun-related homicide." {Emphasis added}

http://guncite.com/journals/dk-ideo.html

In the United States, serious discussion of gun control has taken two primary approaches: the criminological and the legal. Criminologists have asked whether various gun controls would reduce gun crime and other gun misuse, or whether restrictive gun control laws would deprive innocent victims of an efficacious means of self-defense. Legal scholars of gun control have studied whether the right to arms guarantees in the federal constitution and most state constitutions pose legal barriers to restrictions or gun confiscation. This essay has an entirely different purpose: to examine the ideological frameworks of the American gun control debate. {Emphasis added}

The second article (immediately above) is quite lengthy, but for those interested in the ideological framework and background of the issue, it is well worth the read. In the final analysis, I believe that the "ideological" positions of gun owners, AND gun control proponents, has evolved into a type of animosity which is typical of fanatical religious or political adversaries.

If this PollingReport collection of various poll results is any indication, Americans are almost evenly split on the issue of guns, with a slightly higher percentage in favor of the "reasonable" regulation of firearms.

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

As I have stated before, I live in Hawaii where gun control is stricter than most states, civilian public carry is not allowed (except in rare circumstances), and Hawaii enjoys the lowest gun death rate in the nation. Excerpts from an article in a local newspaper state:

http://www.starbulletin.com/news/hawaiinews/20090507_gun_deaths_in_hawaii_lowest_in_nation.html

{Snip}

"Dr. Max Cooper, director of the Hawaii Rifle Association, says Hawaii's low gun death rate is related to Hawaii's ethnic groups and physical isolation from other states rather than the laws."

Hawaii generally has a law-abiding population," he said, adding that Hawaii doesn't have a large gang or drug-related problems."

Speaking just for myself (but I suspect that at least 40-49% of Americans agree with me), I have not one single problem with guns in the home for whatever purpose they are intended: hunting, marksmanship, collecting, or protection. As for the public carry of firearms (especially CCW) by the general population, however, and in spite of assurances of the sanity, trustworthiness, professionalism, and checks and balances of licensed carriers, I have a few reservations about the practice.

Instead of demanding that I concede that my concerns are groundless based on statistics and assumptions, it would seem that gun proponents of public carry have at least a cursory responsibility to both convince me that I am being overly paranoid, and to at least entertain certain concessions (to be determined) to reduce my anxiety.

[TPaine7]

1. "Instead of demanding that I concede that my concerns are groundless based on statistics..."

Statistics are mathematical measures of reality. With all due respect, it appears to me that you are asking us to exercise our cursory responsibility to convince you that you are being paranoid--incorrectly estimating reality--without resorting to using measures of reality.

Can you see how that would put us in a bind?

I intend no insult, I simply think that your request is badly flawed.

[billh58]

3. You may be

correct, but a large percentage of those who don't own guns, and who have little or no knowledge of the mechanics or actual practice of public carry of weapons, can not be expected to just take your "word for it" based on cherry-picked statistics. Statistics are notoriously malleable (ask any statistician), especially when they are quoted by opposing sides which come to differing conclusions based on the same information. Perceived "reality" is sometimes subjective depending on one's ideological view point.

That is why I believe that the onus is on the side who is demanding a change from what has been the norm for decades, to explain their reasoning and rationale in a calm, collected, and convincing way without resorting to questionable (at least in the minds of many) "facts." For instance, the "statistics" which purport to show that the decrease in crime in recent years is directly attributable to an increase in public carry are highly questionable, and appear to be (in large part) unsubstantiated. Yet they are repeated as gospel on a daily basis by many gun enthusiasts.

In almost 70 years of searching for "reality" I've found that absolutely nothing is written in stone, or painted in black or white. A request to "convince" someone who is undecided is NOT necessarily an argument against your position. Instead of just rejecting my OP out-of-hand because you are convinced that you have already put forth the required effort to "explain the facts of life" to we unwashed, how about at least reading a portion of the linked articles and THEN tell me that I'm full of shit for wanting to start a dialouge...;-)

[TPaine7]

7. I believe that increased concealed carry and gun ownership by sane adult non-felons tends

to lower crime.

But that is my personal belief or hunch, NOT AN EMPIRICALLY PROVEN FACT. I recognize the difference.

But while my hypothesis may be unproven, there are some very strong, unassailable statistics that undermine gun control beliefs.

1) During the last few decades, concealed carry has become legal in many parts of the United States where it was previously forbidden by local law.
2) During the last few decades, other gun laws have been liberalized.
3) During the last few decades, murder, rape and armed robbery have fallen.

Now I understand from my own knowledge of statistics that this does not mean that liberalized gun laws cause crime to fall. I also understand from criminologists with high-level statistical skills that, so far at least, the data shows a very slight to zero CAUSAL link between liberalized gun laws and falling crime.

What the data does indicate very clearly, however, is that gun control reasoning is false. The gun control line has been, from the beginning, that if gun laws were liberalized crime would skyrocket and blood would run in the streets. That has been proven false, and not by questionable data. Reality--the crime rate falling as gun laws were liberalized--has shown that the rationale for gun control is false.

Now you believe that the onus is on the person who wants change. On that point we strongly disagree, but I will reason from it for the sake of argument. Let us say that a Hawaiian woman being stalked by a violent estranged husband wants to carry a gun to protect herself and her children. She has been trained in gun safety and is sane with a clean record. She points out that other states that have CCW have not regretted it or had the predicted increases in crimes. It seems to me that she is well able to explain her reasoning and rationale in a calm, collected, and convincing way, wouldn't you agree? And yet Hawaii will not condescend to grant her the "privilege" of bearing arms within its borders--concealed or otherwise.

Now having argued from within your premise, I will take issue with it. From where I sit, the onus is universally on the people wanting to restrict freedom. I can't find an exception. It was the people who wanted to maintain slavery who needed to justify it, not the people who wanted their freedom. It was the people who wanted to forbid marriage between races that needed to justify their position, not the interracial couple who fell in love. Today, it is the people who want to forbid gay marriage who need to justify their position.

For decades the Supreme Court didn't enforce the First Amendment's free speech provision, but that did not invalidate it. And when people demanded that their First Amendment rights be respected, it was not the people who wanted change--actual enforcement of the Constitution--who needed to justify their position. The restriction, constriction or regulation of freedom needs justification. Freedom itself is self-evidently good.

I don't reject your OP out-of-hand, I don't view you as unwashed, and before I tell you that you're full of shit you'll have to prove it to me. I hate do disappoint you, but starting a dialogue just doesn't cut it. ;)

[billh58]

11. Well said, and

well argued. The "Hawaiian woman" being stalked is less likely to be killed with a gun in Hawaii, because their are very few guns in the islands. That doesn't mean that she won't be assaulted by her ex, but neither of them are likely to die from bullet wounds. Not the best outcome, but the "statistical reality" of life in Hawaii.

I have never argued for restricting anyone's legitimate rights. For what it's worth, I have been in a "mixed race" marriage for over 50 years, but I have never really thought of it that way. The very vague wording of 2A (as recognized by various legal scholars) does not speak specifically to the right to "bear arms" in public, and that application of the RKBA has always been controversial. The assumption that those who would question the claim that there is an "absolute Constitutional right" to carry in public by the general populace are somehow "against civil freedoms" is a flawed argument on many levels.

Now, having said all of that, I agree with you for the most part. There is absolutely no evidence that there is a correlation of any measurable degree between crime rates and legal gun ownership. You are correct that the SCOTUS did not "enforce" certain provisions of the Bill of Rights for decades, but then again it is not their purview to "enforce" the law -- only to interpret it. More correctly, the Federal Government Legislative Branch did not pass adequate First Amendment laws to meet Constitutional requirements, nor did the Federal Government Executive Branch adequately enforce First Amendment laws and regulations already on the books. A similar situation exists with 2A today.

And lastly, I totally agree with you that, "The restriction, constriction or regulation of rights needs justification. Rights themselves are self-evidently good." Under that reasoning, I believe what we are attempting to arrive at, is an agreement on what constitutes "justification" on BOTH sides of the public carry issue. I believe that even Justice Scalia recognized that need for further clarification when he included the following in his closing remarks in the Heller decision:

"We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns..."

And finally, the "because I have the Constitutional right to..." argument has never been an effective defense against the justified regulation, or restriction, of certain enumerated rights.

[TPaine7]

22. I appreciate intelligent debate. It's quite refreshing, really.

The "Hawaiian woman" being stalked is less likely to be killed with a gun in Hawaii, because their are very few guns in the islands.

Ok, I concede that as fact, based on your knowledge of the state. But that was not the point. You wanted to hear an explanation of a gun rights proponent's reasoning and rationale in a calm, collected, and convincing way without resorting to questionable (at least in the minds of many) "facts." I attempted to provide you with a hypothetical Hawaiian who could provide such an argument. Her arguments would be 1) I need to protect myself and my family from a clear and present danger and 2) there is no rational reason to prevent me from carrying a firearm to protect myself and my family, statistically speaking.

Furthermore, the woman's need for a gun to protect her children and herself from her (on average) bigger, stronger and faster husband has nothing whatsoever with whether or not he is armed. She needs a gun because he carries at all times weapons capable of easily killing her children or her--at the end of his arms and legs. In Hawaii's present legal structure, a criminally aggressive ex-husband or spurned boyfriend has the legal assurance that he can safely assault, torture, abduct, maim or kill her and her children at will. That the police MAY catch him later is his only concern. And restraining orders are an obscene joke; I will be impressed by them when they are used (as the exclusive protective measure) by judges, politicians, presidents, and people like former mayor Guilliani's mistress. Actually, they won't even impress me then.

I have never argued for restricting anyone's legitimate rights.

I think you are assuming your conclusion--you are assuming as a premise that "bearing arms" in public is not "legitimate." Or at least that's how I read this.

For what it's worth, I have been in a "mixed race" marriage for over 50 years, but I have never really thought of it that way.

I didn't doubt that we were on the same side of that issue. That is precisely why I used it as an analogy.

The very vague wording of 2A (as recognized by various legal scholars) does not speak specifically to the right to "bear arms" in public, and that application of the RKBA has always been controversial.

Who are these various legal scholars? Are they advocates for gun control? Have they always been advocates for gun control? Find me one imminent scholar who, having believed in gun right has changed his or her mind upon examination of the evidence. Find me one imminent historian who has changed his mind similarly.

The very vague wording of 2A (as recognized by various legal scholars) does not speak specifically to the right to "bear arms" in public, and that application of the RKBA has always been controversial.

I believe you are misinformed. The first time the Supreme Court mentioned the Second Amendment, it called it a "right of person" and spoke of the right of citizens to keep and bear arms wherever they went in any state of the union. That was not a controversial interpretation a few years after the ratification. And while the Second Amendment may seem awkward in its wording to modern American ears, it was not so at the time.

The assumption that those who would question the claim that there is an "absolute Constitutional right" to carry in public by the general populace are somehow "against civil freedoms" is a flawed argument on many levels.

That would indeed be a flawed argument if anyone made it. It is customary in debates on gun policy to resort to such arguments. I don't attribute it to dishonesty in your case--I think it's an unfortunate reflex. Of course there are no "absolute Constitutional rights" including speech. So while I still assume you are arguing from an honest position, I haven't always so assumed:

..."More than two hundred years" after its ratification, you {Obama} write, "we continue to argue about… whether the Second Amendment prohibits all gun regulations…."{1}

Only in the sense that we still debate the earth's shape. Sure, someone somewhere supports Charles Manson's right to a machine gun, toddlers' rights to derringers, and New Yorkers' right to hunt squirrels in Central Park. But that hardly seems relevant to America's debate.

Your words saddened me, implying that you respect neither the Second Amendment nor the intelligence of those who do. Sure enough, on page 215 the other shoe dropped—you "believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers' lobby."{2}

Source: obamaonsecond.com

Now, having said all of that, I agree with you for the most part. There is absolutely no evidence that there is a correlation of any measurable degree between crime rates and legal gun ownership. You are correct that the SCOTUS did not "enforce" certain provisions of the Bill of Rights for decades, but then again it is not their purview to "enforce" the law -- only to interpret it.

Yes, I understand separation of powers. I simply meant that they did not declare the infringements unconstitutional.

And lastly, I totally agree with you that, "The restriction, constriction or regulation of rights needs justification. Rights themselves are self-evidently good." Under that reasoning, I believe what we are attempting to arrive at, is an agreement on what constitutes "justification" on BOTH sides of the public carry issue.

I think we are talking past each other somehow. Both sides don't need justification; only the side that wants to keep that mother from carrying a weapon needs to justify its position. That was the point I was making.

Unfortunately for the side that wants to keep that sane, adult, trained non-felon from carrying a weapon, there is no evidence--no real world statistical evidence from states that have allowed such persons to carry guns--to indicate a net loss to society. Having no justification for the restriction and freedom being the default, Hawaii should fold.

I believe that even Justice Scalia recognized that need for further clarification when he included the following in his closing remarks in the Heller decision...

I don't believe in absolute rights, outside of thought, constitutional or otherwise. So yes, the contours of the right need to be carefully defined. ALL rights must be balanced; that woman may have a right to keep and carry arms in every state of the union, but she cannot carry them in a way that directly threatens others. For instance, the state is perfectly within its legitimate powers to prevent her carrying an unholstered gun with her finger on the trigger so that she carelessly paints people in the mall. They can obviously forbid gun designs that are subject to firing when dropped or that will explode when properly maintained and used.

And finally, the "because I have the Constitutional right to..." argument has never been an effective defense against the justified regulation, or restriction, of certain enumerated rights.

True, of course. I cannot use free speech as a defense against ordering a hit or conning widows. I cannot use freedom of association as a defense against a charge of sheltering and aiding terrorists. My freedom of religion is no defense against my practice of human sacrifice. And I cannot use my right to bear arms as a defense against carrying them into your house against your will, or as a justification for sweeping a crowd with a rifle.

[billh58]

25. All great points, and

exactly what I am looking for.

Your statement: "I think you are assuming your conclusion--you are assuming as a premise that "bearing arms" in public is not "legitimate." Or at least that's how I read this." is not quite what I am asserting.

I don't believe that the question of public carry "legitimacy" has ever been addressed in Congress, or in the court system, or we most likely would not be having this discussion, as it would be settled law (like RKBA in the home). Most public carry advocates seem to accept as a foregone conclusion (as in your scenario of the ex-husband stalking and threatening his former wife) that public carry is a legitimate and established interpretation of 2A. I don't believe that the issue has been adequately addressed by either the Federal Government, or the SCOTUS, and remains controversial, and is "up in the air" in the minds of most Americans.

Your statement: "I think we are talking past each other somehow. Both sides don't need justification; only the side that wants to keep that mother from carrying a weapon needs to justify its position. That was the point I was making." again assumes that the right to public carry is a settled matter. I contend that it is not, and that both sides do indeed need to arrive at a mutual understanding of what constitutes "justification" in order to allow public carry nationwide.

Your statement (and assumption) that: "Unfortunately for the side that wants to keep that sane, adult, trained non-felon from carrying a weapon, there is no evidence--no real world statistical evidence from states that have allowed such persons to carry guns--to indicate a net loss to society. Having no justification for the restriction and freedom being the default, Hawaii should fold." requires a few answers:

1) What is considered be an acceptable "net loss to society," and who makes that determination? One accidental death? Two or more? One criminal who slipped through the net? One mentally unbalanced, stalker, ex-husband who fooled the system? Should these possibilities be considered and addressed before anyone "folds?"

2) Isn't it a little presumptuous to assume that the citizens of Hawaii (or any other locality) are guilty of restricting rights willy-nilly by stating that "Having no justification for the restriction and freedom being the default, Hawaii should fold."? As of right now, public carry remains a "local" determination in the USA, and the majority of the people of Hawaii are apparently at peace with their current "justifications."

Actually, the various Hawaii County Chiefs of Police (each island has its own police chief, and contrary to Hawaii 5-0, absolutely NO State Police) have the "power" to grant both open carry and concealed carry permits, but traditionally have not done so except in extremely rare circumstances. This has been true since well before statehood, and the policy continues to today. The state does have, and enforces through the Police Chiefs, strict gun registration laws. Hawaii also proudly boasts the lowest gun death rate in the USA.

Sorry for the italics, and the lack of shaded "quote boxes" but my level of HTML coding is nowhere near yours. I've looked for the "quote box" command line, but can't find it.

Peace...;-)

[GreenStormCloud]

31. Actually, it has been addressed.

I don't believe that the question of public carry "legitimacy" has ever been addressed in Congress, or in the court system,...

41 states now have shall-issue concealed permit systems. With only a few exceptions, those states have enacted shall-issue in the past 25 years. I would consider the debate in all of those state houses to be signifigant reflection of public debate.

[TPaine7]

39. I think I will make several small posts, instead of one long one.

I don't believe that the question of public carry "legitimacy" has ever been addressed in Congress, or in the court system, or we most likely would not be having this discussion, as it would be settled law (like RKBA in the home).

That is a perfectly rational and reasonable conclusion, reached in the absence of contrary evidence. It is the conclusion I would come to were I in your position. However, having read extensively on the subject, I am not in your position. I KNOW that the right to bear arms publicly was not controversial in America.

Public carry was not, as I said earlier, controversial the first time the full Supreme Courts mentioned of the Second Amendment--it was no more controversial than freedom of travel or of political meetings or of free speech:

It {recognition of free blacks as citizens} would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=60&invol=393

I have a book that goes into excruciating detail on how the Supreme Court has recognized gun rights, among them the right to public carry--Supreme Court Gun case ( http://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Court-Cases-David-Kopel/dp/1889632058/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276546867&sr=8-1 ). See if it's available at a local library. Read actual case histories.

In order to get to where we are today, a whole lot of lying and defiance of the Constitution took place. I have outlined a small bit of it in my open letter to Obama at www.obamaonsecond.com . Check it out.

[billh58]

41. Thanks for the

links, and I will read them. I found the following statistics (I assume that they are mostly correct), which explains why it is rare to run across someone carrying a gun in public:

http://blogostuff.blogspot.com/2004/12/percentage-of-adults-with-carry.html

I totally understand the rationale behind the case for arming one's self for self-defense, and the implications of a failure to uphold the Constitution -- even if one does not agree with certain of its provisions. I personally don't believe that the KKK, or other White Supremacy groups should be allowed to shout out hate speech in a public venue, but I also recognize that it is protected speech under the Constitution.

Now if I could just get rid of this nagging fear that the Army wants to quarter armed troops in my home...;-)

[X_Digger]

46. Recent estimates double that number..

.. and put it at ~6M. I found 1.5M in 8 states with a bit of googling..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=282461#282498

eta: fixed link

[TPaine7]

42. Second post

Your statement: "I think we are talking past each other somehow. Both sides don't need justification; only the side that wants to keep that mother from carrying a weapon needs to justify its position. That was the point I was making." again assumes that the right to public carry is a settled matter.

Not at all. My argument has nothing to do with public opinion. You miss the thrust of my arguments; I have maintained (and you have agreed) that rights need no justification--only the side wanting to restrict rights needs to justify its position.

My argument goes like this:

1) The woman has a right to defend herself and her children. She therefore has the right to the MEANS to defend herself and her children. Her rights on this issue need no justification, as NO RIGHTS NEED JUSTIFYING. (You have previously agreed with me that rights do not need justification.)
2) Gun control has argued against the right of sane, law abiding, adults carrying weapons on the grounds that it would lead to mayhem, blood in the streets, rising crime rates and the like. It has not. Gun control's justification for denying the right to carry weapons having been refuted by reality, it should fold.

I contend that it is not, and that both sides do indeed need to arrive at a mutual understanding of what constitutes "justification" in order to allow public carry nationwide.

You are still arguing that rights need to be justified. There is no equivalency between gun control and gun rights; any more than there is equivalency between ANY GOVERNMENT CONTROL and ANY RIGHTS.

AS WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY AGREED (your post 11 above), "The restriction, constriction or regulation of rights needs justification. Rights themselves are self-evidently good."

Now as to the idea that I am assuming that public carry of arms is a constitutional right in American law, I have touched on that in my previous post above. It clearly was not controversial throughout most of American history. Concealed carry was not regarded as protected, but open carry was. States had to allow at least open carry. And whether or not blacks and other minorities could carry weapons has been controversial. But whether or not persons recognized as full citizens could keep and carry arms was not controversial.

For just a hint of the evidence that it was not controversial, read up on the history of the Fourteenth Amendment. (You can start your research with my post here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x229712 ). You might also find this link informative ( http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm ).

The guys who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment--authors of the Constitution--clearly wanted black people to be able to carry guns in public. It is beyond honest, informed debate.

[billh58]

43. Thanks again

for the education and for sharing your obvious extensive knowledge of the Second Amendment and its origins. As stated previously, I have learned much during this discussion, and have accepted that ALL eligible citizens have the absolute right to be armed.

[TPaine7]

45. I wouldn't go so far as to say "absolute"

"Absolute" implies far too much.

You have a right to fire (even though the Constitution doesn't say so), but you have no right to possess fire (or even matches or lighters) inside the dynamite factory.

Arms rights are subject to balancing against other rights. But the balancing should be as principled, as reasoned and as rule and logic bound as any other rights balancing. That's all.

I'm glad you've changed your mind. It's refreshing to meet someone willing to consider other opinions and facts. Very refreshing.

Personally, I started out as a gun control supporter, but I started reading the best scholarship I could find from both sides and weighing the arguments. It was no contest. I changed my mind, too. And I am willing to do it again. It would take a lot of evidence, very powerful evidence, but I can be convinced to support gun control.

I am constantly looking to have my ideas tested, it's why I come here. Thank you for--civilly and intelligently--making me justify my position, sir. It doesn't happen much around here.

[GreenStormCloud]

33. But Hawaii has a very high general crime rate.

You say: The "Hawaiian woman" being stalked is less likely to be killed with a gun in Hawaii, because their are very few guns in the islands. However, being killed by stabbing, being beaten, etc is NOT an improvement. By restricting her ability to have a gun you have reduced her ability to protect herself. The stalker is now able to overpower her. You have made her position worse, not better.

Further, according to http://www.criminalwatch.com/stats/hi.asp "The crime rate for the state of Hawaii is 27.59% higher than the national average according to the National Institute of Corrections." Your violent crime rate is climbing, and that is at a time when violent crime is dropping in most of the rest of the U.S.

[TPaine7]

44. I wasn't going to mention this, but a serviceman in my family said that he and other soldiers

were warned not to go into certain areas of Hawaii because there are gangs (or there is a gang) that like(s) to rape servicemen!

A single anecdote, I know, but wow!

[TheWraith]

9. Statistics may be malleable.

Perceptions are far more so. It's widely perceived that the nation today is more dangerous than it was 20 years ago, even though the violent crime rate has plummeted since then.

"That is why I believe that the onus is on the side who is demanding a change from what has been the norm for decades"

What has been the "norm?"?

"For instance, the "statistics" which purport to show that the decrease in crime in recent years is directly attributable to an increase in public carry are highly questionable, and appear to be (in large part) unsubstantiated. Yet they are repeated as gospel on a daily basis by many gun enthusiasts."

Nobody who understands word one of sociology is going to make that claim. Some people here and elsewhere do certainly connect the two, if only to point out that the assumption which underlies the complaints about concealed and open carry laws--that allowing people to have guns will result in crime--is undeniably false.

[billh58]

12. The "norm"

I referred to is that the public carry of firearms by our civilian population has not been legally commonplace for decades. That is not to say that its prohibition has been Constitutionally sound, only that public carry has not been the "norm" in the preponderance of localities in the US.

And, as I've stated elsewhere, you are correct in that there is absolutely no correlation between gun ownership and crime rates. There IS, however, a demonstrable correlation between the number of guns in a particular area, and the gun death rate. But the same correlation (percentage) of fatalities also holds true for automobiles, trains, knives, horseshoes, and people.

[GreenStormCloud]

36. Shall-issue concealed carry IS the norm in most states.

41 states are shall-issue. Shall-issue IS the norm.

[onehandle]

2. All you are going to get from this room is that legal gun owners are perfect saints...

...and that the Constitution dictates that they can carry whatever guns they want, where they want, and how they want.

Here Gun Ownership and Owners > Everything and Everybody else.

But, good luck.


Oh, and they will instantly set on me and brush me off as a 'gun grabber,' thus my opinion is unimportant, but in reality, they don't know me at all.

[TPaine7]

4. The problem with your position is that it doesn't hold water.

legal gun owners are perfect saints

No one claims that.

Constitution dictates that they can carry whatever guns they want, where they want, and how they want.

No one claims that either.

Here Gun Ownership and Owners > Everything and Everybody else.

Once again, no one claims that.

The practice of rights > the hatred or suppression of rights, I'll give you that. For example, your right to post dishonest and illogical caricatures of gun rights positions is more important than any gun right advocate's possible desire to silence you. Do you see how that works?

Oh, and they will instantly set on me and brush me off as a 'gun grabber,' thus my opinion is unimportant, but in reality, they don't know me at all.

No, the problem with your position is that it holds no water. Your post is a string of distortions. And it's easy to see that without knowing you. Obviously.

[onehandle]

5. Oh, and they will deny that the collective here believes these things.

I was just reminded of that.

[TheWraith]

6. If you were actually arguing with anyone here, you might get taken seriously.

As it is, you're just playing with a big collection of strawmen.

[jazzhound]

It's always one falsehood after another with you, isn't it?

The "collective" feels exactly as TPaine7 concisely outlined in his post #4. And that would include his perceptions of your behaviour. :-)

Perhaps your strategy with your factose intolerant posting was to derail the conversation, or to encourage it to devolve into a shouting match. If this is the case, I will wager that your strategy will fail as resoundingly as your "arguments".

[jazzhound]

23. deleted -- duplicate post n/t

[SteveM]

54. Gun-owners at DU are a "collective?" See, we're leftists after all. nt

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rrneck]

8. I never had much use for statistics.

Probably because I'm mathematically inept.

It seems to me that the burden of proof should be reciprocal. If you have concerns, which are quite legitimate, then the concerns of those who would like to carry a gun should be addressed with a solution to replace the one they are proposing.

People move around. Sometimes they need to defend themselves when they do. If you put a thousand people in a room and told them that three of them would be assaulted or murdered next week, five hundred of them would go out and buy a gun tomorrow. Statistics can tell us how many, but it can't tell us who.

From a public policy perspective we don't know who will get assaulted with any greater certainty than we know who will misuse a firearm. The best we can hope for is to train the owners of firearms in the proper rules of engagement and penalize those who fail in their responsibilities. Micromanaging people's lives is an exercise in futility. Using the collective power of the people through the government to create a more just and compassionate society is the best way to reduce gun violence.

When people feel they don't need guns, they won't carry them.

[billh58]

13. Thanks for the

candid and down-to-earth perspective. I believe that your last sentence gets to the heart of the issue: When people feel they don't need guns, they won't carry them.

My observation is that there are many places in the US where people don't feel the need to carry a gun right now. I know that it is not a popular view, but I tend to believe that the public carry of guns is one of those issues which needs to be determined at the "local" (State, County, or City) level. That approach appears to be working relatively well across the nation at the present time.

[rrneck]

14. I lean toward federal regulation.

Since one can drive all the way across the continent in a few days, local regulation would create an impossible patchwork of laws and regulations to navigate. And they would be ripe for abuse.

I'm lucky enough to live in a low crime area, so the sight of an open carry firearm would be unusual indeed. In fact, I've seen more naked people walking down the street than people with guns.

[billh58]

16. Heller guaranteed

the RKBA in the home nationally, and many believe that satisfies the intent of 2A. Until the SCOTUS, or the lower Federal courts, rule on the application of 2A to public carry, it will necessarily remain a "local" determination.

I'm not sure that the SCOTUS wants to take on the issue of public carry any time soon, and the ball is in the Congressional court it would appear.

[GreenStormCloud]

32. 43 states have determined it to be at the state level.

Two states forbid concealed carry completely. 41 states have shall-issue laws.

[Euromutt]

48. You touch on an important point

And one that is often overlooked, both in the gun control debate and elsewhere, namely that statistics are useful for making predictions about populations, but much less so for individual members of those populations.

Take, for example, the rough statistic that ~25% of persons who have smoked ~40 cigarettes/day for ~40 years will develop lung cancer. This statistic does not apply to any given individual smoker, because you can't get one-quarter of a case of lung cancer; you either do or you don't. So it's a binary choice, which means that for any individual, the chance is actually either 0% or 100%. Problem is, we have no way of reliably predicting which of the two it is for that individual. An important factor in this that unlike, say, winning the lottery, getting lung cancer is not a matter of random selection; at most, it may seem that way because we don't (yet) fully understand all the possible causal factors.

The same applies (in broad terms) to whether one will become a victim, or a perpetrator, of violent crime.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. I submit to a fingerprint check, and full background check every 7 years

and State Patrol, and the sherrif's office know immediately when they pull me over, that I have a gun, because a big red flag shows up on their screen when they run my, or my wife's plates.

How's that for concessions?

If I commit ANY type of crime wherein I leave behind a good print, the FBI will find me. How about you, honest, law abiding citizen? Have you had to subject yourself to the same registration treatment we put Felons through, so you could exercise a civil right?

[billh58]

17. While I'm sure

that you consider the hoops that you must jump through to get a CCW an imposition, Justice Scalia in Heller recognized that those regulations (not necessarily "restrictions") are completely Constitutional. I don't buy your claim that these checks are concessions any more than proving US citizenship in order to vote, or to be employed, is a "concession."

And yes, I have undergone fingerprinting and a full background security check for every Federal Government project that I've undertaken in the past few years. It's a pain in the ass, but then again what part of ANY governmental bureaucratic process is not...;-)

[AtheistCrusader]

18. Oh, I've been printed and scrutinized 6 ways till sunday for other reasons.

Still, it is a concession. I'm ok with it, I was more or less upset at the implication that these licenses are just handed out to anyone. The process is both expensive, and obnoxious, to say nothing of invasive.

I do agree they are legal/Constitutional regulations.


I'm curious what state requires proof of citizenship to vote. WA requires proof of residency, and they verify your signature to your voter registration. But I did not have to prove citizenship to register.

Edit:

it would seem that gun proponents of public carry have at least a cursory responsibility to both convince me that I am being overly paranoid, and to at least entertain certain concessions (to be determined) to reduce my anxiety.

One thing that, on top of the registration requirements, and collection of fingerprints, WA does not have a training requirement. I personally would be ok with such a requirement, specifically focusing on legal implications, when and when not to draw a weapon, when and when not to fire, etc. There are plenty of example cases, 'do this, go to jail', to build a quality training course out of. Also, civil implications, 'do this, don't go to jail, but lose your property in a massive judgment' etc.

You will find few that agree with me though, as the training requirement would amount to a restriction on what 'we' perceive as a constitutional right, similar to a poll tax. We've had enough trouble with 'may issue' states as it is.

[billh58]

20. Each state

establishes its own requirements for voter registration, but most (I believe) require at least some sort of proof of residency. But you are correct in that I can not recall ever being asked to "prove" my citizenship or eligibility to vote, even though it is a Constitutional requirement for Federal Elections. Makes me wonder now, how many undocumented aliens and felons are allowed to vote nationwide, and who tracks that information?

The "concessions" I am talking about are mainly along the lines of what you have mentioned: training, testing, background checks, mental and emotional stability, etc. Since 2A is the only part of the Bill of Rights that might reasonably lead to the use of deadly force against another citizen, I believe that it should come with adequate regulation and oversight -- especially for the issuance of permits for public carry. I also believe in the Castle Doctrine, and the right to self defense. I guess that makes me a hypocrite of sorts, as this philosophy would deny the opportunity for self defense by firearm to those who are mentally and emotionally challenged, felons, and those who refuse to comply with regulations.

In the end, I believe that however difficult it may be to achieve, the end goal should be to continue to attempt to arrive at a point where no one feels the need to carry a gun in the public venue.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. I'm not a fan of the Castle Doctrine.

I don't like the idea that any home invasion can result in killing the invader. If the invader has surrendered or is leaving, and not presenting a threat, he or she should not be shot, no matter how offended we may be that some scumbag just broke into our home.

In WA, we just don't have a duty to retreat, so in any home invasion case where the assailant is shot, the investigating officers will determine whether the shot was justifiable or not. In some cases, it may not be. In Florida, I doubt they even bother investigating, beyond determining the person was breaking into the home, and not invited in or something.

[spin]

35. It's not a requirement that you shoot an intruder under castle doctrine ...

it's your choice.

Every situation will be different.

Marion Hammer, National Rifle Association's lobbyist in Tallahassee and former first female President of the National Rifle Association, had a interview on talk radio discussing Florida's castle doctrine law. I'll post an excerpt which applies to the use of castle doctrine inside the home

GIACHINO: One thing that is a little bit confusing – well, actually a lot of things are confusing about this law, particularly because of the misinformation that is being given by the Brady group, but one thing that confused me, and I read the law several times myself and would consider myself qualified to read it and understand it with my legal background, but nonetheless someone who is retreating, a perpetrator who is retreating, what happens then? If they had entered the person’s home unlawfully and the person felt that their life or someone in their family’s life was in danger, even if at some point the perpetrator turns to retreat, if deadly force is used against them would this law still apply?

HAMMER: The law is designed to allow you to use deadly force against an individual who breaks into your home. If someone turns around, you have no way of knowing whether or not they are retreating or whether or not they are going for a gun or something else. So yes, if someone breaks into your home they are at your mercy. Once they get outside your home – if they turn around and run and get outside your home, then you cannot take action against them.
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/marion-hammer-nra-interview.htm

You confront an intruder in your house and draw down on him and yell, "Don't move!" He turns his back to you, draws his own weapon, whips around and shoots you before you can react. You hesitated because you didn't want to shoot the intruder in the back and you just made a BAD mistake.

In a state without a castle doctrine law similar to Florida's, shooting a person in the back would probably be seen as unjustified and you would be in serious trouble. In Florida, you can make your shoot or don't shoot decision without as much fear of being prosecuted. Unfortunately, you will have to live with your decision. If it turns out that he was unarmed and just wanted to flee, the memory of what you did will haunt you for the rest of your life.

[SteveM]

55. Are you sure about what SCOTUS considers constitutional?...

Thanks for the give-and-take, here. My reading of Scalia's stuff is that Heller was narrowly construed, and that any regulations not addressed were not decided by this court; in other words, regulations were not necessarily unconstitutional as a result of this rather narrow decision. I don't think I read a declaration by Scalia that some local regulation or law was constitutional per se.

[billh58]

56. You are correct, and

thanks for catching that.

[SteveM]

57. No problem. Scalia says he's conservative, so you have to think like that. nt

[jazzhound]

19. I'm willing to have a civil discussion on this issue if you

feel that you can hold up your end of the bargain. In our last exchange, you weren't completely civil. Paraphrasing from memory:

You win. I bow to your superior knowledge and intellect.

(You felt the need to use sarcasm, despite the fact that I had directed no sarcasm at you.)

Well, at least it's nice to know that you don't see me as a complete asshole.

(Attributing attitudes to me that I didn't express -- since I hadn't suggested that you were an asshole to any degree.)

If you're capable of extending the courtesy to me that you seem to have no problem extending to others here, yes ---- we can have a civil discussion. Otherwise, I'll just be on my way. ;-)

[billh58]

21. The use of sarcasm

and satire is perfectly acceptable in most debate forums, and in civil discussions, as long as it does not resort to blatant ad hominem attacks on, or impugn the character of, your opponent.

If you were sincerely offended by my earlier remarks, and attempts at injecting some levity into the discussion, I apologize and will attempt to refrain from using sarcasm in the future in any exchanges with you. I would also point out that assuming a defensive posture from the very get go, often times invites biting responses.

Seeing as how my memory chip has been wiped and re-written so many times over the years, please feel free to remind me if I inadvertently question your integrity.

Mea culpa...;-)

[Scuba]

24. What I have difficulty understanding...

..is that while most DU members realize that the government is a wholly-owned subsidiary of big corporations, and that they want to further enslave us, many (most?) want to take away a tool that we may need if it comes to another revolution.

Completely disarming the populace seems a good way to ensure that we can not retake control of the government if it comes to that.

[billh58]

26. I am not aware

of anyone on DU who wants to "completely" disarm the populace, or even take away any individuals' guns.

This discussion centers on the matter of the public carry of firearms, the justification for the practice, and whether or not 2A even applies to public carry.

Revolution? Retake control of the government? Really...?

[oneshooter]

40. There are several on DU that have

Announced that they would like to see a total ban, enforced by the UN or the military of other countries. I believe that Mexico and Canada were mentioned.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[pipoman]

60. Well

This discussion centers on the matter of the public carry of firearms, the justification for the practice, and whether or not 2A even applies to public carry.

it seems to me that the very democratic process of state after state duly passing concealed carry legislation, I believe the number is 43 states now to be exact, deems the constitutionality of ccw to rest, certainly nobody is claiming that ccw is unconstitutional? I have heard of absolutely no real movement in any of those states for repeal or any other downward reform, no, on the contrary, many states are strengthening their laws..Now does the 2nd apply? as in, is state ccw required to conform constitutionally after a scotus ruling on incorporation? I doubt it...maybe? Who knows? I think the larger question revolves around liberty and liberal interpretation of the entire Constitution. Have states which have incorporated CCW laws experienced any adverse real statistics showing a net negative result from extending this liberty to law abiding people? No? Well then what would the justification for repeal, or any public request or demand for that matter be? From what I have read it has been your feeling of safety which you believe should be considered with enactment of ccw?

[billh58]

63. Thanks for your

well-reasoned input, and I agree that my safety is my responsibility, and no one else's. As for the Constitutionality of CCW, I concede that is not an issue.

[old mark]

27. I have had a PA State License to Carry a Firearm for over 15 years.

It must be renewed every 5 years-another complete State Police, and local police background check conducted by th ecounty sheriff's office, as in every state that has a "shall issue" law. My license is revocable at any time for cause. I also have a basckground check every time I purchase a gun, as does everyone else.
Various states keep a record of CCW holders who are arrested or convicted of violent (gun related) crimes...Florida, for example started such a record, but abandonded it after some years bercause the numbers were so small there was no point to continue it.Typically, the conviction for violent crime rate for such liucense holders runs under 2% of all license holders (NOT of all gun owners).
The number IS extremely low and While I am not claimimg we are saints, we are generally law abiding and not likely to rob or kill you or anyone else.
Those who use guns in crime generally steal them or buy them illegally from those who have purchaed them illegally...they DO NOT bother to get the license-they never would qualify and it costs time and money and personal contact with local law enforcement.

Those of us who have been law abiding citizens all our lives and get licensed are not likely to suddonly go out and rob a 7-11 or break in to someone's home with our licensed gun...even anti's must see that.

You are free to think what you like, but do not restrict my rights simply because you don't want to exercise them yourself.

Besides, gun ownership and use IS the constitutional law and won't change any time soon...

mark

[Euromutt]

28. Your request is somewhat problematic

Instead of demanding that I concede that my concerns are groundless based on statistics and assumptions, it would seem that gun proponents of public carry have at least a cursory responsibility to both convince me that I am being overly paranoid, and to at least entertain certain concessions (to be determined) to reduce my anxiety.

There's a maxim that "you can't reason someone out of a position he didn't reason himself into." You acknowledge yourself that your position is based on emotion (anxiety) and irrational (paranoia). You refuse to be swayed by empirical evidence.

So at this point I have to ask, why on Earth should it someone else's responsibility to allay your concerns, when your position is, by your admission, unreasonable and not amenable to reason? Why should anyone be reasonably expected to make concessions to, and generally defer, to your irrational concerns?

[X_Digger]

29. Your inability to deal with reality is not my burden to bear.

Unfortunately, you also appear to live in a place that doesn't allow you to explore the culture you're irrational about, which would otherwise be my advice for dealing with your preconceptions.

[GreenStormCloud]

30. Problem with the first article.

...there is a significant correlation between the percentage of handgun ownership and the rate of gun-related homicide." That statement combines both legal and illegal gun ownership. Drug dealers, muggers, mafia members, gang-bangers, pimps, loan sharks, etc all have guns. They are a very high risk group for homicide. In fact, over half of homicide victims are themselves involved in crime. Those people are not effected by gun laws and will have their guns no matter what the laws are.

Objective policy should take that into account and not lump legal gun owners statistics in with illegal gun owners statistics.

[billh58]

37. A sincere thank you

to everyone who responded to me, and I sincerely appreciate your candor and and honesty. Some of you seem to think that this was some kind of a ruse to promote "gun control," but let me assure you that it was not. This has been a learning experience for me, and has given me much to think about.

Aloha and peace to all...;-)

[spin]

38. I can understand your reservations about CCW ...

as you live in a state where concealed carry is not allowed except in exceptional cases.

Initially I felt there would be a lot of problems when in 1987 "shall issue" concealed carry was passed in Florida. I was wrong.

In 1987, when Florida enacted such legislation, critics warned that the "Sunshine State" would become the "Gunshine State." Contrary to their predictions, homicide rates dropped faster than the national average. Further, through 1997, only one permit holder out of the over 350,000 permits issued, was convicted of homicide. (Source: Kleck, Gary Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, p 370. Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.) If the rest of the country behaved as Florida's permit holders did, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate in the world.

David Kopel, Research Director at the Independence Institute comments on Florida's concealed carry experience:

"What we can say with some confidence is that allowing more people to carry guns does not cause an increase in crime. In Florida, where 315,000 permits have been issued, there are only five known instances of violent gun crime by a person with a permit. This makes a permit-holding Floridian the cream of the crop of law-abiding citizens, 840 times less likely to commit a violent firearm crime than a randomly selected Floridian without a permit." ("More Permits Mean Less Crime..." Los Angeles Times, Feb. 19, 1996, Monday, p. B-5) emphasis added
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html

But some may question the source of these statistics and they are somewhat dated.

Florida publishes a monthly summary report on concealed carry. This report covers a time frame approaching 23 years from October 1, 1987 to May 31, 2010. During this period of time 1,787,628 concealed weapon permits have been issued and currently 729,103 are valid. Only 167 licenses have been revoked for a crime in which a firearm was utilized after the license was issued.

The report can be reviewed at http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

Having enjoyed the shooting sports for many years, I've known my share of people with carry permits. Many of my co-workers had permits. Most people with a carry license only carry on an occasional basis but regular shooters who visit a range several times a month are more likely to carry frequently.

One of the most important things to realize about people who do have a license is that they have had a background check and a clean record. It's rare for a person who has never exhibited violent tendencies to suddenly become violent or aggressive, which is why so few people with carry licenses misuse their firearms. The concealed weapons permit classes emphasize the problems you can get into if you fail to follow the law.

Also many people feel that a permit is valuable item and don't want to show any behavior that might endanger their license. I found that once I obtained my permit, I became more polite and far less aggressive. For example, I no longer gave some fool that cut me off in traffic the finger. Perhaps the old statement that "an armed society is a polite society" has more truth than most people recognize.

I also have known many police officers over the years and have questioned them on their viewpoint of allowing licensed citizens to carry firearms. All have expressed the view that those who legally carry concealed are not a problem and none have ever arrested a permit holder for misusing his weapon.

Many people advocate open carry. Florida does not allow open carry so I am unfamiliar with it and somewhat distrustful. I'm sure that if Florida allowed people to carry openly, I would become accustomed to seeing people openly packing and would lose my concern. I am also sure that if you lived in Florida, you would have far less concern about people carrying concealed.

[billh58]

52. Thank you for the

information, and you are correct about my "nurturing." I spent my very early years in Southern California, and moved to Hawaii (before statehood) as a teenager. My only experience with guns was in the military, in Vietnam, and needless to say none of that was very positive.

The very idea of the public carry of firearms is foreign to me, but I have come to accept that it is an important civil rights issue for many Americans. I can only hope that with the return of an armed public, the practice of civility is also restored.

[iverglas]

47. oh, I'm late to the party, but let me join the fun

The second article (immediately above) is quite lengthy, but for those interested in the ideological framework and background of the issue, it is well worth the read. In the final analysis, I believe that the "ideological" positions of gun owners, AND gun control proponents, has evolved into a type of animosity which is typical of fanatical religious or political adversaries.

And I believe that anybody who offers up an article by DAVE FUCKING KOPEL as worth reading, let alone an article in which he, a leading light in and devotee of the "pro-gun ideology", purports to analyze his adversary's "ideology" ... c'mon, you're all dressed up in woolly clothing with nowhere to go, right?

Okay, mea culpa, I'll be nice and offer the benefit of the doubt. You really are a newborn lamb when it comes to this stuff, right?

[billh58]

49. Well said,

and very enlightening. Thanks for your input.

[TPaine7]

50. Dave Kopel does not favor Canadian-style gun prohibitions

However, if you want to get to the bottom of the issues some people have with him, ask them to verify him LYING and DISTORTING as groups like the Brady Center have been demonstrated repeatedly on this board to have done. Just as your disagreement with me earlier did not justify my dismissing your arguments, Dave Kopel's disagreements with Canadian-style gun prohibitions do not justify dismissing his.

I call it intellectual honesty.

For your reading pleasure, here is the first post in another exchange involving the integrity (or lack thereof) of a scholar ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x243633#243652 ). You can see the reason for the "skepticism" regarding Don Kates' objectivity in post 57, where I clearly outline the "logic" of my opponent's argument.

(Note: while you have still failed to prove to me that you are full of shit, other posters have been more successful.)

So while you should be aware of Kopel's positions regarding the RKBA, almost everyone speaking on the subject has an opinion. The fact that Kopel fails to agree with a highly biased and obnoxious poster is not a reason to dismiss his analysis out of hand. Nor is your lack of awareness of Kopel's opinion a reason to rudely call you out.

[billh58]

51. Thanks for the link

and that explains a lot. I really didn't come here to pick a fight, but to learn.

[TPaine7]

53. I appreciate that.

I really didn't come here to pick a fight, but to learn.

I appreciate and respect that. It's exceedingly rare around here.

You have your own POV and your own experiences, but you actually care about the truth. Take all the time you need, you'll be able to see what's what.

[jazzhound]

58. I'm sincerely glad that you checked out the link that

TPaine7 provided. The more you research gun "control", the more you recognize that there really is no difference in the "debate" tactics of those who argue in favor of control here at DU and those of the members of the gun control lobby.

My interest in the subject we're discussing jumped significantly when I discovered that a criminologist who's a lifelong liberal Democrat was in serious disagreement with the policy positions of the Democratic Party. I later discovered that Dr. Gary Kleck once supported gun control, and changed his position as he studied the empirical evidence. Ultimately his own sound research earned him the highest award bestowed by the American Society of Criminology --- and he remains the only criminologist to have won the Michael Hindelang Award in the arena of guns/violence.

You mentioned that you came here to learn. Perhaps you'll find a pair of articles written by Kleck defending his research illuminating. It really is hard to come away from these essays with a warm fuzzy feeling re. the integrity of Hemenway, Cook and others who argue for control. It should also be noted that to date there has been no response to Kleck's decisive smackdown of his critics ---- their political purposes were served the moment that their dishonest "critiques" of Kleck's National Self Defense Survey were published by their partners in the media.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz2.htm

http://www.secondamendmentlibrary.com/11/kleck1999.pdf

I'd also strongly suggest a book co-authored by Gary Kleck and Don Kates --- "Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control". It's relatively brief, and written in non-technical terms -- quite accessible to those with little background in the gun control debate. A good follow-up read would be Kleck's "Targeting Guns. Firearms and Their Control". Here's a chapter breakdown of the subjects discussed in "Armed" followed by a link:

Chapter 1 -- Introduction (Kates)
Chapter 2 -- Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? (Kates)
Chapter 3 -- "Poisoning the Well" for Gun Control (Kates)
Chapter 4 -- Absolutist Politics in a Moderate Package: Prohibitionist Intentions of the Gun Control Movement (Kleck)
Chapter 5 -- Modes of News Media Distortion of Gun Issues (Kleck)
Chapter 6 -- The Frequency of Defensive Gun Use: Evidence and Disinformation (Kleck)
Chapter 7 -- The Nature and Effectiveness of Owning, Carrying, and Using Guns for Self-Protection (Kleck)
Chapter 8 -- The Constitutional Right to Arms: A Right to Self-Protection (Kates)

http://www.amazon.com/Armed-New-Perspectives-Gun-Control/dp/1573928836/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276652854&sr=1-1

[billh58]

59. Thank you

for the info and the links, and I will definitely check them out. I believe that many, otherwise liberal, Democrats are confused about the definition of "gun control." I know that I had a little trouble understanding the difference between reasonable regulation, and the outright prohibition of classes of weapons and types of firearm usage. At first I believed that the anti-gun control movement was totally against ALL regulation, and I found out that was not the case.

The "middle ground" that I was curious about does NOT include the unreasonable, irrational, curtailment of 2A rights, or the demonization of those who exercise those rights.

[jazzhound]

61. You're very welcome.

I hope that you read (or have read) the reviews of the Kleck/Kates book. I agree strongly with those who suggest that if you read just one book on the subject of gun control, it should be "Armed".

I also agree with the critical review that commented on the repetitive nature of the material contained in the work. But.........it's only repetitive if you've been on the case for a while --- and like the first positive reviewer mentioned, it's a solid consolidation work.

Upthread I noticed a classic example of pro-control dishonesty. I'm not suggesting that you believe that there's a correlation between high levels of violence and high numbers of firearms in a community -- one of your statements on the subject suggests the opposite, actually. What I'd like to point out by bringing this up is that those who favor "control" have a irrefutable track record of dismissing plausible theories for statistical correlations that run counter to their narrative. By suggesting that high numbers of firearms cause the high levels of violence in communities with both high violence and large numbers of firearms, the pro-control groups fail to consider an equally valid (though equally speculative) theory: that people who live in violent communities are aware that they live in a dangerous environment and the higher number of firearms in the area is the result of the citizens perceived need for self-defense. (In other words, is the 95 pound woman walking her Rottweiler, or is the Rottweiler walking her?)

[billh58]

62. I agree, and "statistics"

can be, and are, manipulated by those who tend to use smoke and mirrors to bolster a point. More guns = more gun deaths, is simply a statistical probability, the same as more cars = more accidents = more car deaths, or more bananas = more peels = more slip and falls.

As you point out, areas with high crime rates would suggest a high level of illegal weapons being carried by random criminals. Coordinated and directed gang activity multiplies that threat, and pretty soon the police departments are overwhelmed, and have difficulty responding even after the fact. The choices for the average law-abiding citizen then become self-protection by only a limited number of choices: arm themselves, move, or hope for the best.

As a Liberal Democrat, I would like to believe that more focus on social safety nets, and outreach programs aimed at education, employment, and addiction counseling, will eventually reduce crime rates. As a rational, educated, realist, I also recognize that there will always be sociopaths and human parasites who will prey on the weak and unprotected.

I freely admit to having an aversion to guns, which stems from participation in the Vietnam war, and having lived a relatively "gun free" life since then. I also respect the Constitution and its protection of all Americans' right to bear arms. To me, the best outcome will be to uphold the Constitution while working very hard to reduce the need for self-protection in this country -- in order to form a more perfect union...

[jazzhound]

64. We likely agree on more than we disagree.

As a Liberal Democrat, I would like to believe that more focus on social safety nets, and outreach programs aimed at education, employment, and addiction counseling, will eventually reduce crime rates.

With you on this, and..............

To me, the best outcome will be to uphold the Constitution while working very hard to reduce the need for self-protection in this country -- in order to form a more perfect union...

..........can't disagree with this statement.

Which is precisely why it's so tragic that the implementation of the ideals of the Democratic Party has been undermined by the poor choices of the party w/regard to gun control legislation.