Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (13872)	11/26/1997 1:43:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Respond to of 108807

Morning Christine. Hoo boy. Where to begin. The link I posted above contains the following reference (re proportion of gun ownership to violence). It addresses the connection between tighter gun control laws and crime rate, or instruments of crime. The conclusion is that it's more likely that private gun ownership/carry reduces violent crime. I realize that this flies in the face of the material over at the VPC link. So... one of these links is a lot wronger than the other! Completely ignoring my stated bias against the confiscationists, I'm bemused by the difference in tone between the two texts. VPC is right up front about their aim: "to show that privately-held firearms are...an inherently dangerous menace to America's public health". The texts I've read (about half the total hypertext in the site) are full of alarmist, suggestive language without an awful lot of numbers. Well, we probably have a pretty refractory difference of opinion here, since we operate from distinct sets of opinions and values (at least on this subject). Either way, here's some primary literature on the difficulty of proving the core thesis, namely that Guns = Violence. >One of the more sophisticated attempts to find evidence of the efficacy of gun control laws is Zimring, Firearms and Federal Law: The Gun Control Act of 1968, 4 J. Leg. Stud. 133 (1975). This study purported only to find suggestive evidence that the 1968 federal gun control law may have had some marginal effects in reducing violence. Even that tentative conclusion seemed to evaporate when the data was subjected to a more realistic multi-variable test. See Magaddino & Medoff, An Empirical Analysis of Federal and State Firearm Control Laws, in Firearms and Violence 225 (D. Kates ed. 1984). A comprehensive review of the literature led Professors Wright and Rossi, who began their research as believers in gun control, to the conclusion that there are no demonstrable causal connections between private gun ownership and the crime rate. See National Institute of Justice, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Weapons, Crime, and Violence in America (1981).< On to specifics. >Even if we allow handguns, I would certainly support them in their efforts to get armor-piercing bullets and very powerful weapons outlawed. What need does the average citizen really have for these, or for hand grenades? Forgive me for being dense, but where does this stuff about grenades and A-P ammo come from? Neither I nor the NRA advocates easy access to any of these! Anything with a rocket and/or an explosive charge (larger than a rifle primer or the igniter in your airbag) is classified as a "destructive device" and falls out of the purview of the Second Amendment. Machine guns are an interesting border case. While their possession is not federally banned, the states have a broad discretion over whom they'll allow to own them. In California, that pretty much is limited to the armed forces and movie studio armories. I don't stand a chance of legally buying a Stoner Model 86. And that's no skin off my teeth really. I just don't want my Colt Gov't Model, my revolvers or my semi-auto AR-15 pattern rifle suddenly designated improper for private ownership. >We already have "use a gun, go to prison" laws, incidentally. Some people argue very rationally that these laws INCREASE fatalities, as criminals don't want to leave witnesses and become more desperate. Seems to me that this rational argument conceals the premise "we've got these laws, and they aren't working". THAT, in my most humble and considered opinion, is the true Enemy here. If the author has given up on the system, what's the point of debating legal niceties? Seems something more radical is needed, putting some teeth in existing law. >>the people who want to be in a militia movement, and/or feel that they should be able to own and carry handguns, or me, and all the victims of gun violence in this very violent society. I really don't think it's fair to equate NRA membership with a pro-militia standpoint. I for one dismiss the so-called "militias" (which is a perversion of English on the same order as calling the Crips a "club") as extremist fringers. All the shooters I know share this revulsion. Have you been the victim of gun violence? You're implying such. I have been. I got held up with a revolver tucked under my chin. And I can tell you this : if I'd'a had a gun on me that evening, I would have done nothing different. When the Bad Guy has a bead on you, it's already too late. No Walter Mitty fantasies of shooting back first here! So please don't imagine that my defense of handguns as self-protection devices is unconditional or overly gung-ho. But I'm trying to draw this discussion away from extreme edge circumstances. Like this bit about someone dedicated to do a murder. Take away guns, and I'd wager that situation hasn't changed. Unless you just lost the opportunity to draw a gun and hold Ms. Assailant at bay while punching 911.