Sharp as a Marble - The most dramatic example I've yet to see

<< Resistance is not only futile | Home | The Suck – it goes all the way to 11 >>

The most dramatic example I've yet to see

Reasoned Discourse

Reasoned Discourse&trade

Joe engages an anti. Anti actually makes an attempt at discussion. Facts are brought in that anti can't challenge. Discussion actually continues for a while until anti closes shop and sends entire post down Memory Hole #17.

Look, I've pulled posts before, but never by memory hole tactics. I always leave up the post itself, but explain why I felt that having the data on the web was incorrect. In the search for truth, admission to being wrong is critical. If you can't do it and resort to pretending it never happened, then you need to realize you are not mature or educated enough to be responsible enough to play with the adults.

posted @ 6/10/2009 2:01:02 PM

Comments

Weer'd Beard says:

on 6/10/2009 2:57:21 PM

http://anothergunblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/asking-for-facts.html

Mike W. saw something VERY similar.

Kinda funny how one side needs to pull this shit to keep their ideology.

Sebastian says:

on 6/10/2009 4:10:03 PM

It depends on why they take the post down as to whether it is Reasoned DiscourseTM as we know it. If they took the post down because they changed their mind, and regretted the position they took, that's not reasoned discourse. If they took it down because they didn't want to deal with people disagreeing with them, and trying to change their minds, then it is. If they took the post down to spare themselves embarrassment of not having any facts to argue, then it's really reasoned discourse.

Joe Huffman says:

on 6/10/2009 4:37:19 PM

His explanation for the deletion is here.

The answer appears to be either #2 or #3:

---
I deleted the gun post referencing the Parade/Bob Herbert articles because none of the comments pertained to the statistics I mentioned in the original post. There wasn’t even an attempt to acknowledge the casualties of gun violence, include children and innocent bystanders. Every comment pertained to a legalese interpretation of the Second Amendment and some really stupid insinuations against me personally (I should have realized what was coming when somebody said I apparently opposed doctors also because of statistics about botched/unnecessary surgeries…or something).

The line about me not caring about people’s safety as a motivation for the post was the last straw. It was apparent that all commenters merely wanted to use the post as a forum for their views. Go elsewhere to engage in that exercise.

And don’t bother submitting more comments on this subject because I’ll delete them too; I provided a forum for an intelligent dialogue, and it was abused, so we’re done.
----

Robb Allen says:

on 6/10/2009 5:33:01 PM

Poor baby.

We can't engage them on their turf because they'll delete their comments. They won't venture onto ours.

Yeah, I think I'm justified in calling them cowards.

Weer'd Beard says:

on 6/10/2009 5:50:55 PM

heh, Robb, honestly I don't care if they change their mind or not, just so long as they don't continue to spread misinformation and wrong-minded propaganda, I'm OK with that.

This is a SOLID victory!

Jake says:

on 6/10/2009 7:56:21 PM

You can't win against people who aren't willing to listen, because they aren't really participating in the debate in the first place. There's no one to beat.

BTW Robb, I thought, since you wrote the blog engine, that you might like to know that it renders perfectly and very readably on my Palm Pre (and I assume on the iPhone, too).

divemedic says:

on 6/11/2009 8:40:25 AM

I don't argue with them to beat them, I argue with them to illustrate the idiocy of the poster's position to any fence sitters who may also be reading.

Last night I saw a man cut his throat with a piece of glass. I guess we should now outlaw glass.

mike w. says:

on 6/11/2009 1:26:11 PM

honestly I don't care if they change their mind or not, just so long as they don't continue to spread misinformation and wrong-minded propaganda, I'm OK with that.

Agreed. Lies and bigotry should be called out and exposed when possible. They should be ridiculed and marginalized.

It'll be a great day when they've been marginalized to the point where they won't even spout their bigotry out in the open. In other words, I want to see the anti-gun movement go the way of the KKK.

UBU52 says:

on 6/12/2009 7:12:15 AM

I'm an anti who is also pro-gun, primarily because I realize guns are necessary in some parts of the country. I do not believe every citizen of the United States needs to be armed and I actually think that is a REALLY scary idea.

I've had some great debates with pro-gun people who eventually end up agreeing with me, so what is so bad about the anti-gun people? There is mutual ground between us.

Many pro-gun people agree with the anti's that people in gangs shouldn't get CCWs... But why not? Gang members actually face specific death threats more than the rest of the US population. Shouldn't we allow all gang members who aren't felons to get CCW permits?

There was a little girl who was killed last year in Los Angeles. She was helping her mother with the dishes when a bullet came through the wall and killed her. The police didn't arrest anyone because the main battle was gang members shooting other gang members. The little girl was just collateral damage I guess. The police ruled the shooting "self defense" because the bullet that killed her came from the gun of a guy who was shooting back at someone who shot at him first. Did this example of self defense end up on the Civilian Self Defense Blog?

At any rate, I'm a anti because I live in a big crowded city. The police respond in seconds here, and they send out lots of cars. I can't imagine why anyone would need a gun to walk down any of the streets here. The mall, 1/2 a mile from my house, has a police substation in it. This city has over 200,000 people and averages a couple of murders every year -- usually between people who know each other. There are plenty of guns in houses and businesses. I see no need for a liberal CCW policy.

So, I guess that makes me an anti.

P.S. I think there are pro-gun folks who are totally whacked. Seriously. They love their guns but they seem to hate almost everything else.

Robb Allen says:

on 6/12/2009 7:55:21 AM

UBU53 - you make the standard mistake of equating the position of "Anyone who wishes to arm themselves should be allowed to do so with no interference" with "Every last person should have a gun". Not the case at all. Nobody here, nor have I ever seen the argument made that people should be forced to have a firearm. That's a strawman.

What is bad about anti-gun people are that they are anti-rights. It has nothing to do about guns and everything to do about control. The first gun controllers were the KKK-types who wanted to make sure blacks and hispanics couldn't get guns so they couldn't protect themselves. Gun control started on an illogical and racist foundation and while the racism may have subsided, the logical portion hasn't.

Gang members - If a gang member hasn't committed a felony, there's nothing to stop them from getting a CCW. However, you're naive if you believe that gang members are going to pay a $150 fee, take a firearms course, get fingerprinted and have a background check run on themselves. You're also lethally naive if you think a gang member is going to say "I'd love to go shoot up that mofo who disrespected me, but I can't because I don't have a concealed weapons permit".

I know this is hard to understand, but criminals do not obey the law as it is. They're not going to worry about getting charged with carrying a concealed weapon if they're already intent on committing murder / rape / robbery etc.

The little girl is a tragedy. Shall I tell you about the small child who was run over the other day by a car? Or killed in a crash? Because I have dozens of those stories from this month alone.

How about drownings? Because more children die from accidental drownings than stray gun fire. Nobody needs a pool, they're luxury items. Yet nobody feels the need to make it difficult to get a pool license or buy a car.

Why? Because the benefits of vehicles and pools far outweighs the damages done. The vast majority of car and pool owners do not cause the deaths of others. Yes, each death is sad, but is not enough to call for the banning of cars and pools.

The exact same thing can be said about firearms.

Did that story end up in the Self Defense blog? Probably not. I have a hard time believing that gang members were given a complete pass for a shooting. If you accidentally kill someone in a vehicular accident, you don't get to just 'walk away'. I'd appreciate a link to that story that proves that nobody was charged. Us firearm enthusiasts know that you are responsible for the bullet and where it goes.

The police do not respond in seconds. That's bullshit. It's minutes at best. Most self defense scenarios happen in seconds, seconds you don't have to reach for the phone, call 911, and explain everything.

Even then, the police are not responsible for my life nor that of my family's. I am. In fact, they do not even have an obligation to protect you. You may take that risk if you so desire, I refuse to.

P.S. I think there are pro-gun folks who are totally whacked. Seriously. They love their guns but they seem to hate almost everything else.

And this has to do with the price of rubber dog shit in Wyoming how? There are crazy doctors, does that make the medical profession a bad idea? That's a very poor argument for anything.

I appreciate you coming by and discussing this and you're more than welcome to drop by as often as you like. My readers are for the most part civil, if not a bit sarcastic. I warn you though, come prepared with links and statistics handy because we're armed with our own (pun very much intended). We're not "gun nuts" simply because we like to shoot stuff, but because we have done our due diligence and the facts prove us right.

Again, thank you for dropping by.

UBU52 says:

on 6/12/2009 1:05:50 PM

Here's a link to the story about the little girl: http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/17/local/me-selfdefense17

Robb Allen says:

on 6/12/2009 3:35:36 PM

UBU52 - Now, explain to me how refusing to grant CCW licenses to non-felons would have changed that story? How would making it harder for me to get a license stopped those gang members from shooting each other?

Then explain to me how a justice system that cannot even punish people for killing another human would even stand up to punish them for having a gun?

Not a single thing anti-gunners propose would have stopped that from happening. Not one. If you really believe that a gang member will not have a gun because it's illegal for him to do so, I'm afraid there's very little we will agree on.

mike w. says:

on 6/12/2009 4:09:15 PM

UBU uses an appeal to emotion to make his argument, since he cannot use facts or logic to do so.

Even then, the police are not responsible for my life nor that of my family's. I am. In fact, they do not even have an obligation to protect you. You may take that risk if you so desire, I refuse to.

That's the crux of the problem Robb. Too many people have been conditioned to abrogate that basic responsibility to someone else. Many people do not know the police have no duty to protect them, and many others know but steadfastly refuse to accept it as truth.

The problem is that you and I choose to accept that responsibility, but those who refuse to will also try to make us just as dependent on others as they are.

And of course then there's the moral issue involved in asking a stranger to use lethal force in your defense (and risk his life) when you choose not to.

UBU52 says:

on 6/12/2009 7:47:35 PM

An "appeal to emotion"? Despite the fact "links and statistics" are mentioned in the last few posts, I see no evidence of either of those things.

Nonetheless, I am amused by this quote:

"Gang members - If a gang member hasn't committed a felony, there's nothing to stop them from getting a CCW. However, you're naive if you believe that gang members are going to pay a $150 fee, take a firearms course, get fingerprinted and have a background check run on themselves."

I guess our gang members are different from those near you. Many of these gangs are more like businesses than anything else. Here's a gang member who took police science classes while he was out on parole: http://www.streetgangs.com/topics/2003/021303atwater.html

Please note, according to the article, "The gang also posted armed sentries with cellular phones or walkie-talkies to guard the three main roadways that run in and out of their turf, according to police." Since CCWs are impossible to get in Los Angeles, there's no point in even trying to get one. But can you imagine how happy that gang leader would have been if his "armed sentries" could have been legally armed?

Robb Allen says:

on 6/12/2009 7:53:45 PM

One link is not statistics. Even the links to the Self Defense blog do not full statistics make.

I ask you once again, how would stopping me from getting a CCW stop thugs from carrying guns?

If you cannot elect officials and judges who will put them away for gang related activities, what makes you think the gang members are going to fear a misdemeanor charge of carrying a concealed weapon without a license?

UBU52 says:

on 6/12/2009 8:21:12 PM

Stopping you from getting a CCW would not stop thugs from carrying guns.

However, when only criminals are carrying guns on the street, it's a lot easier to spot the criminals.

Gang injunctions make it easier to turn that misdemeanor into a felony. Of course, real criminals don't fear felonies either. The only real solution is to lock them up for good or make the laws so unfriendly that they move to a state with friendlier laws and slower policemen.

Robb Allen says:

on 6/12/2009 10:26:00 PM

Stopping you from getting a CCW would not stop thugs from carrying guns.

Then why push for legislation that makes it harder?

However, when only criminals are carrying guns on the street, it's a lot easier to spot the criminals.

They had the Jews wear little pin on stars for the same reason.

I went to a church today. And to the mall. And to a restaurant. Not a single person knew I had a firearm on me. What super powers do you possess that allow you to see a concealed weapon?

Gang injunctions make it easier to turn that misdemeanor into a felony.

And yet gang members, like the ones you posted about earlier, continue to walk your streets.

Of course, real criminals don't fear felonies either. The only real solution is to lock them up for good

Bingo.

ANY law you make that inhibits the law abiding does nothing to stop the criminal. Nothing. We've got hundreds of years of proof on that. The only thing that has any effect is to keep them locked away (you'll need to free up some space - let the nonviolent drug users out, for instance).

or make the laws so unfriendly that they move to a state with friendlier laws and slower policemen.

Wait a minute. You JUST said they don't fear felonies. You can't make the laws any more unfriendly than that.

Besides, when they get to places that take care of themselves, they end up getting shot at a lot more than your cities where the populace is unarmed. Anyone breaks into my house is going to have to deal with 00 buck from a 12 gauge. Or a 6.8SPC. Or 7.62x54R.

You rely on someone else to put their lives on the line so you don't have to. I won't ask another man to do so when I have the ability in me to protect myself. To do otherwise is cowardly and shameful.

Again, the only thing you've stated that makes logical sense is locking up the crooks. Even in England where the bobbies have the authority to strip search every last person with no cause, they still can't stop the guns. How do you plan on doing any better?

Here's another thing to keep in mind. I won't give mine up. Ever. Even if the laws change and go against me, I will never turn in my firearms. All you will do then is make criminals out of those who refuse to be victims, and how is that going to help crime go down?

Joe Huffman's question is the best
Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?

Can you answer that?

Jake says:

on 6/12/2009 11:50:39 PM

"Even in England where the bobbies have the authority to strip search every last person with no cause, they still can't stop the guns."

Something else to think about - England is an island and they can't stop the guns. Do you really think we can do better here?

UBU52 says:

on 6/13/2009 1:33:23 AM

That gang member (Timothy McGhee) got the death penalty.

California has much tougher weapons laws than most of the states in the country. Guns are allowed in the home and at businesses for self-defense but hardly anyone gets a CCW to carry on the street in the heavily populated counties. What's interesting is that there are a lot of urban cities in California that have hardly any crime. Check out Irvine, Simi Valley, Lake Forest, Glendale, Burbank, Beverly Hills, Alhambra, La Canada, Thousand Oaks, etc.

I've read pro-gun posts about Kennesaw GA having a law that everyone has to own a gun, but La Canada has a similar population and no such law -- and it has a lower crime rate than Kennesaw has. I'm sure, if one looked hard, one could find more communities like La Canada. Kennesaw just makes a good story for the NRA.

You wrote: "Here's another thing to keep in mind. I won't give mine up. Ever. Even if the laws change and go against me, I will never turn in my firearms. All you will do then is make criminals out of those who refuse to be victims,"

So, you'd rather be a criminal than give up your weapon? What about giving up your CCW? The law isn't going to make you a criminal. It's your decisions that will make you a criminal. You either follow the law or you don't. Criminals don't follow laws. If you choose to not follow laws and you become a criminal, don't blame anyone but yourself. You chose that path.

Joe Huffman's question implies that there is NO law controlling ANY aspect of gun ownership or use that has EVER made the average person safer. I beg to disagree with this. I can't think of any major instances but I can think of tons of minor laws that make the public safer -- like laws that remove guns from the hands of Alzheimer's patients.

Why don't pro-gun folks mention Switzerland anymore? Switzerland used to be used as a prime example of a country with lots of guns and low crime.... Eh?

John Hardin says:

on 6/13/2009 1:57:17 PM

The law isn't going to make you a criminal. It's your decisions that will make you a criminal. You either follow the law or you don't.

A nice theory, but it no longer holds true in this nation. We are a nation of so many laws that nobody can know them all or obey them all.

UBU52 says:

on 6/14/2009 4:30:51 AM

"A nice theory, but it no longer holds true in this nation. We are a nation of so many laws that nobody can know them all or obey them all."

Au contraire! As my father always said: We are 50 separate countries, each with their own laws! "States rights" and all that, you know?

As far as gun laws go, I've always heard (from the NRA and the pro-gun guys, no less) that ONLY criminals don't follow the laws.

Non-criminals follow the law to the letter!

This thread is going to die from neglect but I hope you will give me credit for being an "Anti" who didn't fold. (Although I'm not really that much of an anti. I totally believe that people in areas where the police won't appear in a minute or less should be allowed to have guns.)

By the way, someone called "Bullshit" on my claim that the police can be here in seconds. Last week, I was standing in the bathroom when I heard screams in our building (it's a high rise). By the time I walked to the window (maybe 20 feet away) the police were already running towards the building. Turns out a kid was pushed through a window on a lower floor by another kid.

The police here have really small territories -- sometimes only a couple of blocks. I've seen them send out 10 to 15 cars for almost everything that has EVER happened. (We are on a main drag so we see lots of fenderbenders, etc.) It's actually funny to us.

One night, there was a police car stopped at the light with a car right behind it and someone came along and hit the second car rather lightly... Instantly, the police car pulled over to the curb, 15 police cars pulled up to this block blocking every possible way to get down the street. The fire engine came and the ambulance. Someone showed up with a big movie camera (don't know if it was someone famous in the accident). Anyway, this was for a fender bender, an accident that happened at about 10 mph.

I realize that most places aren't like this but I live in a highly populated city that is fairly compact and we have a lot of very well paid police. I've been shocked sometimes to hear how slow the police are in some areas, but hey! They are paying the police like $22K a year to put their lives on the line. Trainees here get something like $70K, police make a lot more. And they are worth it.

Anyway, trust me when I say that everyone doesn't need to have a gun to be protected. A cellphone dialing 911 here would get you more firepower than you could possibly handle on your own -- and it can't be stolen from you and used against you either.

Robb Allen says:

on 6/14/2009 8:20:49 AM

UBU52, don't pat yourself on the back just yet - I have absolutely no intention of changing your mind. What I like is for you to lay out your facts and I lay out mine and the undecided people can judge them for themselves. Unlike the other blogs we are discussing here, your comments will never be deleted. I'm not afraid of the facts since they are clearly on my side.

I have more to say later, it's just that I enjoy spending time with my family and I've had this argument already a thousand times so it's not that high on my list of things to take me away from my girls.

mike w. says:

on 6/14/2009 11:04:03 PM

"A nice theory, but it no longer holds true in this nation. We are a nation of so many laws that nobody can know them all or obey them all."

True Robb. I would be amazed if many gun owners haven't unknowingly broken some gun laws.

It is literally impossible to know the law everywhere. Live in a state without preemption? Great, now you've got Fed + State gun laws to know and follow AND you've got to worry about different laws in different towns, cities, counties.

Not only that, but even knowing the law isn't everything. How they're interpreted can be absurd in depending on where you are.

It's ridiculous how much research I have to do before going on a road trip, just to be sure I don't break any laws. Some laws, like the GFSZ law are almost impossible not to break at some point.

Joe Huffman says:

on 6/15/2009 4:25:31 PM

[Robb, sorry for not stepping in sooner. I've been very busy with the wedding.]

UBU52 said, "Joe Huffman's question implies that there is NO law controlling ANY aspect of gun ownership or use that has EVER made the average person safer. I beg to disagree with this. I can't think of any major instances but I can think of tons of minor laws that make the public safer -- like laws that remove guns from the hands of Alzheimer's patients."

If gun control laws were successful at making people safer then you should be able to find and cite numerous such instances. You can start the the law that removes guns from Alzheimer's patients (I know of no such law). Please include the data that verifies your claims.

That is not to say that I think people afflicted with Alzheimer's should be allowed to maintain possession but that their doctors and family should make that decision not the government.

Baring UBU52 being able to cite evidence of gun control improving safety I don't see that we have anything to defend or to talk about. He has NO justification for attempting to infringe on our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

As for police response times, I had a co-worker who told me of the time she had someone banging on the door at about mid-night begging to be let in because "someone is trying to hurt me". She didn't know who it was and didn't trust them but she did call the police. The police told her that since she lived in a remote location and it was dark it was too dangerous for the deputy to investigate. They would send someone out "first thing in the morning". She told the person outside she had called the police but not the expected arrival time. She implied she had a gun and told them to stop banging on the door and windows.

No bodies or signs of struggle were found in the morning. Speculation by everyone was that it was someone attempting to take advantage of the single mother out in the woods.

She was mildly anti-gun before that. Since then she is very pro-gun.

She and I carry a gun because we can't carry a cop. And until such time as she and I live in a perfect world where their is no crime and everyone has their benevolent guardian (if the ratio of cops to non-cops was 1:1 or even 1:10 I would have concerns about that environment as well) no one has justification for infringing on our natural right to self-defense.

Joe Huffman says:

on 6/15/2009 4:36:06 PM

Oh, on the gun laws being broken issue, see Huffman's Rule of Firearms Law.

UBU52 says:

on 6/15/2009 7:50:02 PM

I never said "No one should have a gun." In fact, I readily support people in rural areas being allowed to CCW, keeping guns in the home, keeping guns in businesses, and allowing people with a lot of training to CCW.

I do not support the idea of passing out CCW permits in urban areas to anyone who asks for one.

The situation with the single mother out in the woods is one of the reasons I believe people who live in rural areas have more need for a gun. The police don't respond quickly, often because they are just too far away.

As for gun laws, well, I'd have to do some research on that.

Robb Allen says:

on 6/15/2009 7:54:00 PM

UBU52, what makes the mother's life any more valuable when she's rural vs. in the city. My mother has recently finished chemotherapy. She lives in the suburbs of Atlanta and has to work downtown. Why shouldn't she be allowed to protect herself? She doesn't have the strength to fend off an attacker of even small stature, but she has plenty enough strength to pull a trigger.

You keep talking about CCW as if handing them out allows thugs and criminals the legal right to attack people. Having a CCW doesn't make it any more illegal to harm another human without just cause, so why bother with it?

Joe Huffman says:

on 6/15/2009 8:29:06 PM

UBU52, if you "do not support the idea of passing out CCW permits in urban areas to anyone who asks for one" then you must have some factual or logical basis for that position. Would you please share that data with us? Going even further, can you show us the data supporting the a claim that even requiring a license for concealed carry has improved public safety at some time and place? Are you familiar with "Vermont (and Alaska) carry"?

UBU52 says:

on 6/15/2009 9:00:02 PM

The reason I don't support CCW in urban areas has to do with stray bullets and population density. I think bullets fired from guns are a public safety hazard in highly populated places.

When the police figure out how to keep their stray bullets from hitting innocent people, then I might be able to support letting a lot more people carry.

Here are some population density stats from the LA Times:

Population density measures the number of people per square mile.

1. Koreatown 42,609
2. Westlake 38,212
3. East Hollywood 31,093
4. Pico-Union 25,351
5. Harvard Heights 23,472
6. Chinatown 22,515
7. Hollywood 22,150
8. Palms 21,983
9. Adams-Normandie 21,848
10. South Park 21,638

Bullets don't stop moving until they hit something. Unlike NYC where they build buildings out of steel, concrete and brick; LA buildings are built out of wood and lightweight materials because they function better in earthquakes. Drywall isn't great for stopping bullets.

So, your right to fire bullets stops where my right to life begins. Your rights are no more important than mine.

Why can't your mother carry a tazer or something less lethal than a gun when she goes to work in downtown Atlanta?

Robb Allen says:

on 6/15/2009 9:36:05 PM

Because tasers are one shot. If you miss, or your assailant is wearing thick leather, tough - you don't get another shot. Many people aren't affected by pepper spray, or on windy days, it can just as readily spray back in your face. Knives and other devices require close contact. No weapon is as effective as a pistol, otherwise cops would have no need for guns.

Two, my right to life is more important than you being able to drive anywhere, so turn in your car (which kills many more people than stray bullets).

Three, a child's right to life is more important than you being able to enjoy a luxury of a swimming pool, so fill them in and make them illegal.

You are focusing on a nearly inconsequential fraction of a percentage statistic to claim you have a right to deny someone a firearm? Please, I have run the CDC WISQARS numbers time and time again and you're going to have to do a lot better if you think accidental deaths by gun fire rank ANYWHERE on ANY chart. You have a greater chance at accidental poisoning than getting accidentally shot.

Like Joe says, cough up some facts. Here, this is a good resource. I want to see NUMBERS of people killed by stray bullets since that seems to be your fear and reasoning.

If you can't provide it, maybe you should as yourself why. If you can, then I'll have to ask myself why.

I have a feeling no facts are forthcoming.

Jake says:

on 6/15/2009 9:45:24 PM

"your right to fire bullets stops where my right to life begins. Your rights are no more important than mine."

If I'm firing bullets anywhere but an actual range, then it's because I believe my life is in immediate and definite danger. While it's possible that a miss will hit an innocent that I can't see, it's unlikely. While I won't deny that it does happen, it's extremely rare. Should I let myself be killed based on a small chance of accidentally hurting someone else?

"Why can't your mother carry a tazer or something less lethal than a gun when she goes to work in downtown Atlanta?"

Tasers are not the most effective tool for self defense, for several reasons:
1) They are single shot weapons - if there is more than one attacker, you're screwed;
2) They are single shot weapons that require both prongs to hit - if only one hits, they don't work, and you're screwed;
3) They can be ineffective if the attacker is wearing thick or heavy clothing;
4) The backup "drive stun" mode requires that you be close enough to touch your attacker - in which case he is also close enough to attack you, which is always a bad thing - it means he's close enough to hurt you;
5) The "drive stun" mode does not incapacitate an attacker like the ranged mode, it works by inflicting pain - if the attacker is on drugs, drunk, or just has a high pain threshold, he can fight through it, and you're screwed.

Guns give you multiple shots for multiple attackers, and they work by physically damaging the attacker. They are still the most effective tools for the job.

Jay G said it best - "The day they perfect the Star Trek phaser capable of instantly stunning an assailant unconscious is the day I stop carrying a firearm for self defense; until then, I'll stick with my .45 ACP."

(On an unrelated note - Robb: Does your blog engine support [ul] and [ol] tags?)

UBU52 says:

on 6/15/2009 10:06:14 PM

No one tracks "stray bullets" though if you Google it, even in Google News, you'll see that quite a few people are hit by them. Even fewer are killed by them.

I haven't seen any facts stating that CCW lowers gun deaths in cities, have you?

mike w. says:

on 6/15/2009 10:16:34 PM

Using UB's criteria we should disarm all cops in urban areas too! Wouldn't want their stray bullets to infringe upon his right to feel safe.

Jake says:

on 6/15/2009 10:18:54 PM

"No one tracks "stray bullets"[...]you'll see that quite a few people are hit by them. Even fewer are killed by them."

The three assertions in that quote cannot all be true. At least two are mutually exclusive.

That being said, I will freely admit that my assertion was based on the fact that such incidents tend to play loudly in the news, but they don't play often (which is why they play loudly - common occurrences don't usually make the news, and they don't make a splash when they do).

"I haven't seen any facts stating that CCW lowers gun deaths in cities, have you?"

I haven't seen any facts stating that CCW raises gun deaths in cities, have you?

The burden of proof is on those who want to restrict a right, not on those who want to continue to exercise the right.

mike w. says:

on 6/15/2009 10:21:32 PM

UB - We don't have to prove that CCW lowers crime. I do NOT have to prove that there is some societal benefit before I may exercise my rights. The onus is on you, as the one seeking to deprive me of my right to offer up solid evidence.

Go for it! (we all know you don't have the facts on your side)

By the way, are you going to answer Joe's question?

UBU52 says:

on 6/15/2009 10:23:03 PM

Looking for some statistics for you, I found something else kind of interesting...

It appears, the tougher the laws are that California passes, the fewer guns get sold: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/drosdata2007.pdf

The state's population has increased a lot since 1993, yet only 1/2 the guns are being sold?
___________
Cops are well-trained so cops get to keep their guns. ;-)

UBU52 says:

on 6/15/2009 10:30:54 PM

There is no right to a CCW. Heller only specified a right to keep at home.

Jake says:

on 6/15/2009 10:39:17 PM

"It appears, the tougher the laws are that California passes, the fewer guns get sold"

The fewer guns get sold legally. Are the criminals getting fewer guns illegally?

Jake says:

on 6/15/2009 10:46:58 PM

Neither Heller nor the Constitution grant the right to bear arms. They only say the government cannot infringe upon it.

Heller was a narrow ruling, like most Supreme Court rulings. However, the ruling in Heller explicitly tied right to keep and bear arms to the right of self-defense. The right to self-defense does not end when you step out your door. You have the right to defend your life in any place you have the right to be, and no government can rightfully take that from you.

UBU52 says:

on 6/15/2009 11:59:54 PM

"Are the criminals getting fewer guns illegally?"

Perhaps. I understand 1992 was a banner year for homicide in LA with 1,092. I can't find the LAPD statistic for that year online but I found 1995 and can compare it to 2008:

Crime 1995 2008

Homicide 859 381
Rape 1590 786
Robbery 29,134 13,354
Agg. Assault 38,945 11,993

Woohoo! Less guns, less crime! Those are interesting numbers considering how much our population has grown.

Here's a link: http://www.lapdonline.org/year_in_review/content_basic_view/32918

Seriously, if you want to know why I think the crime rate has fallen, it would be do to: Stricter gun laws and gang injunctions.

Jake says:

on 6/16/2009 1:24:19 AM

"Woohoo! Less guns, less crime! Those are interesting numbers considering how much our population has grown."

A 62% drop in the crimes specified. Not bad.

But it seems roughly in line with the nationwide trend over roughly the same time period. From the table in the link, violent crime* nationwide dropped 56% from 1993 to 2005. Glancing at the table shows a peak in 1994, with a steady downward trend after.

Since most states actually relaxed gun laws - especially concealed carry laws - during that time, your statistics do not show that "Less guns, less crime" is true. They only show that California was roughly 6% ahead of the national average in reduced crime, a difference that could be accounted for simply by the slightly different years we used numbers from.

Moreover, since (as I understand it) California also introduced stricter and tougher sentencing laws during that time, there are other possible causes for the reduction that you have not eliminated.

You have not produced sufficient evidence to justify restricting people's rights.

*Tracked using the same four indicators you used: rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and homicide. 1993 had 4,190,000 violent crimes, 2005 had 1,823,300 violent crimes.

UBU52 says:

on 6/16/2009 2:52:54 AM

Jake, those figures are only for Los Angeles, not for the whole state of California. Also, after I posted them I discovered that the report for 2007 shows the numbers from 1992 (when Los Angeles hit it's peak in crime which was 1,092 homicides, etc).

(Looking at the report now, total violent crimes for 2008 was 26,514. There were 88,911 in 1992 for a total reduction of 62,397 or 70.2%. If violent crime nationwide dropped only 56%, 70% is a significant difference. Homicide alone showed a 65% drop. Unfortunately, I don't know where you got your numbers so I can't compare.)

California's gun laws have gotten tougher and tougher over the years. We got the AWB in 1990 or 1992 it's still in effect. High cap magazines were also banned. And the latest thing? Well, that would be the bill that's going around now to register ammunition.

Because California's laws have gotten so tough, a lot of gun dealers have closed shop and left. A lot of internet dealers won't sell to California buyers. You can't buy a gun in our Walmarts. And a lot of stuff like that.

UBU52 says:

on 6/16/2009 3:17:59 AM

Jake,

Okay, I figured out where your data came from. If you go here: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm

and compare homicide statistics ONLY, nationally homicide is down 29%. Los Angeles is down 65%. This is a straight comparison based on "Number of homicides" and not the homicide rate.

Robb Allen says:

on 6/16/2009 8:17:17 AM

And yet, UBU, the gang bangers and thugs still have guns.

All you've done is remove the ability for the law abiding to get guns, not the criminals.

And California isn't exactly what one would call a model state. Bankrupt, crime ridden, and bleeding residents and companies faster than the Mexicans can refill it. And the best you guys can come up with is more restrictions on rights.

However, you are stuck on gun control as a crime prevention method. Even your numbers show that nothing of the sort has happened. Sure, less gun shot victims, but crime itself has gone the way of the national trend for the most part.

You cannot prove that increases in CCW permits or legitimate gun sales increases crime. By the way, I don't claim that guns in the hands of the citizenry lowers crime - criminals aren't smart otherwise they'd be doing something more constructive with their lives. What I claim is that an armed person stands a much greater chance at avoiding or coming out ahead during a violent encounter.

Oh, and please. If you want to argue about how well trained cops are with respect to guns, please do. My father is a cop. Between him and me, guess who hits the range much, much, much more often?

Jake says:

on 6/16/2009 9:06:27 AM

"(Looking at the report now, total violent crimes for 2008 was 26,514. There were 88,911 in 1992 for a total reduction of 62,397 or 70.2%. If violent crime nationwide dropped only 56%, 70% is a significant difference."

If your 70% came from the same years as my 56%, I might agree that the 14% difference is significant. As it is, it is still a difference that could be accounted for simply by the slightly different years we used numbers from. Your greater time period, combined with the overall downward trend, will naturally show a greater decrease.

Even if you can show a significant difference, that only shows correlation. Correlation is not causation. Once you have shown a correlation, you must either eliminate other possible causes or show a direct link between California's more restrictive gun laws and the greater decrease in violent crime.

Robb makes several good points, but the two I want to emphasize are:

"You cannot prove that increases in CCW permits or legitimate gun sales increases crime."

This weakens the argument that reducing CCW permits or legitimate gun sales reduces crime. If if it were true, you would expect to see the inverse relationship as well, i.e., an increase in legitimate gun sales would be accompanied by a corresponding increase in crime. Yet, even a majority of the experts who argue against the "more guns = less crime" assertion concede that "more guns = more crime" is also not proven.

Robb's other point that I want to emphasize is:

"All you've done is remove the ability for the law abiding to get guns, not the criminals."

You still have not shown that the onerous gun laws in California actually prevent criminals from getting and using guns. Again, the burden of proof is on the one who would restrict a right, not the one who would exercise it.

UBU52 says:

on 6/16/2009 12:06:17 PM

The last two posts read like emotional arguments to me. Where are your facts and figures? Having a "shall issue" CCW is not a right, per the SC.

;-)

By the way, yesterday, when I was looking at all the crime data, I was quite shocked to see that my own city, population 200K+, has not had a single murder so far this year. That's impressive. Maybe we'll end up being one of the top 10 Safest Cities?

Joe Huffman says:

on 6/16/2009 12:07:31 PM

I don't have the time to run the numbers right now but I would like to point out the risk of comparing percentages. It may or may not be a factor in this case.

Suppose the crime rate in state "A" is 100 per 1000 and the rate in state "B" is 1 per 1000. Then some changes occur in "A" and the crime rate drops to 50 per 1000. The rate in state "B" remains the same. Then someone claims "A" is the place to be because their crime rate dropped and the rate in "B" didn't. That claim would be truthful in some respects but very misleading.

Robb Allen says:

on 6/16/2009 12:27:00 PM

No UBU52, a CCW is an infringement on a preexisting right. You would be raising holy hell if you required a permit to speak up against your government. "Sorry, you don't have a STL (speedy trial license) so you'll have to wait 90 days before a judge can listen to your case". "We're sorry Mr. Smith, without a Self Incrimination Permit, you have no 5th amendment protections".

Jake says:

on 6/16/2009 12:40:55 PM

"The last two posts read like emotional arguments to me."

Huh? Please tell us how pointing out how the difference between correlation and causation applies here is an "emotional argument." Or how pointing out how the figures you are posting do not prove your assertion is an "emotional argument." Please tell me how asking you for proof of your assertion is an "emotional argument."

Robb and I have both pointed out logical flaws in your arguments. Please tell us how either of those posts is an "emotional argument."

And, like Robb says, can you tell me honestly that you wouldn't be raising holy hell if you had to get a government permit to post comments here, or to host a blog of your own?

Jake says:

on 6/16/2009 12:52:08 PM

Joe:

I agree, just comparing percentages is a weak argument. My post was simply to point out a missing factor her argument.

I'll even go so far as to say that the fact that California's crime statistics mirrored the nationwide statistics does not actually falsify her assertion that gun control works - it merely means that the California statistics do not support her assertion.

On the other hand, some other factor nationwide mirroring the effect of California's gun control laws on crime almost exactly is pretty unlikely.

UBU52 says:

on 6/17/2009 3:43:59 AM

Well, I guess we all agree that percentages are not good ways to compare. I was only doing it that way because Jake compared them that way.

On top of that, it's really hard to compare the entire state of California to anything since the state is huge and the laws vary depending on which areas you are talking about. The most gun control (for CCWs) exists along the coast, from San Francisco down.

One more thing... Robb wrote: "You cannot prove that increases in CCW permits or legitimate gun sales increases crime."

No I can't. I won't even try. Things that are considered "self-defense" in a state like Florida or Texas would be considered murder in California. So you can't even look at statistics of "crimes committed" and get the same things to compare.

Robb Allen says:

on 6/17/2009 7:33:36 AM

What if California made homosexuality a crime? Would the resulting "spike" in criminals be valid? Would you consider gay people to now be thugs? Of course not.

So, you can't weasel out and just say "self defense in California is a crime".

Violent crime - something that involves an attack on someone without justification - simply does not go up when more people carry. There are 280,000,000 firearms in the hands of civilians in the US (estimated 9 firearms for every 10 people). There aren't nearly three hundred million violent crimes a year. That alone proves that gun ownership does not CAUSE crime.

So, why shouldn't anyone who wishes to have a firearm that is not a restricted person not be able to do so without interference? You've yet to lay down a solid, fact based reason why.

UBU52 says:

on 6/17/2009 7:09:23 PM

Let me give you an example (your paraphrase of "self defense in California is a crime" is no good):

Just a few weeks ago, a young man from Atlanta with a CCW from the state of Georgia came here to LA and shot a rap artist named Dolla in a mall here. He claimed it was self defense because he thought Dolla was going to shoot him and he felt threatened.

If this had happened in Florida, the police would have let him go because: 1) you can shoot to kill in Florida if you feel "threatened"; 2) you have no duty to retreat; 3) a CCW from GA is legal in Florida.

This CCW holder has no record (AFAIK) and he is currently still sitting in jail here in LA with a "reduced" bail of $2 million. He is charged with murder and probably a bunch of other things too. His GA CCW is worthless here. Feeling "threatened" is not a reason to shoot someone here. Plus, even if he felt threatened, he had a duty to retreat.

Bottom line: Just because your state allows stupid "nonrestricted" people to carry guns on the street doesn't mean that our state has to. As long as "states rights" still have a meaning...

UBU52 says:

on 6/17/2009 7:24:33 PM

I have to comment on this too:

"That alone proves that gun ownership does not CAUSE crime."

Of course, gun ownership doesn't cause crime, but HAVING a gun FACILITATES gun crime.

No guns = no gun crime.

If you outlaw cars, no one will ever die in a car accident. If you outlaw pianos, no one will ever be able to play the piano!

Or do you somehow believe you could have gun crimes even if no guns existed?

How do you like those new Swiss gun policies? Everyone gets to keep their guns -- they just can't get any bullets? (And where are all those pro-gun people screaming "Look at Switzerland! Everyone has a gun! There is no crime!" ;-) )

Robb Allen says:

on 6/17/2009 7:26:55 PM

UBU, that's more horseshit. Florida does not allow you to shoot someone just because you 'feel' threatened. Otherwise you could just walk down the street, poppin' caps in asses and just say "I felt threatened".

No human has the duty to retreat, no matter what the law says. The attacker has the duty to NOT initiate force, period. To place the blame on the victim is the same as saying the girl who got raped had the duty to be someplace else where the rapist couldn't have gotten to her.

The shooter is charged with murder in California and would be charged the same here in Florida. We've got several stories that are similar (only without the big names attached to them). You have to be able to show that lethal force was justified. There is no magic "get out of murder charges" phrase.

Robb Allen says:

on 6/17/2009 8:00:58 PM

No guns = no gun crime.

If that's the best argument you can come up with, my job here is done.

If there was no X, there would be no (action done with X) is not a valid argument.

You can't purchase a knife in a prison. Nobody ever gets stabbed in prison, do they?

Guns exist. Even if people didn't manufacture them as business, the underground would. Just like drugs - they're illegal and yet somehow you can find 'em anywhere you go. Guns are not difficult objects to make. They are difficult to make reliable over hundreds of thousands of uses, but disposable guns are cheap, easy to produce, and don't go through any of those background checks you like to trumpet. Here, let me Google that for you.

You will never put the genie back in the bottle. Ever. Technology will not render violence obsolete, it will simply make delivering it more effective.

However, since that's your argument and what it boils down to (a complete fantasy where there are no guns, only women to be raped by stronger men with pipes or bats), then there's not much more to discuss here.

You can't prove that crime goes up when more people have guns (I've proved that more guns do not raise the crime rate by the sheer volume of guns purchased not equating to a rise in crime). You can't prove that restricting hand held weapons has ever made the average person safer. The best examples you can come up with are rare instances and fantasies (no guns! It'd be like stopping STDs if only people would stop having unprotected sex!). So far, every thing you've thrown our way has been refuted and instead of answering our questions you move the goal posts and ignore the fact that we're demolishing your previous arguments.

I would like to personally thank you for keeping this civil and at least debating us without resorting to ad hominem attacks. You are always welcome here, regardless of your views on gun ownership. You are more than welcome to continue debating us and if you find flaws in my logic or data or that of my commenters, point them out. We're interested in the truth and that's why we take the positions we do.

Timmeehh says:

on 6/17/2009 11:20:05 PM

Without even a hint of sarcasm,

WAY TO STAY CLASSY ROBB!

UBU52 says:

on 6/18/2009 6:14:33 AM

Sarcasm, ha! Well it was an interesting discussion and people here seem civil enough. ;-)

Now I must say that I'm rather bothered by comments that start with "Even if the laws change and go against me, I will never..." or end in "no matter what the law says" because both imply a wanton disregard for the law. As you know, only criminals knowingly disregard the laws.

Being a "law abiding citizen" doesn't mean that you follow the laws you like but you ignore the other ones. That's just something to keep in mind.

Robb Allen says:

on 6/18/2009 7:25:27 AM

UBU52 - Are you saying Rosa Parks should have stayed at the back of the bus? I mean, it was the law!

You confuse crime with laws, though. Again, if queers were made illegal, would you simply tell your gay friends "tough - you have to follow the law!"? Being gay, even though it was 'against the law', isn't a crime.

I'm not a Randian by any stretch of the imagination, but let me quote Ayn for a moment

There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

By making non-crimes illegal (crimes require a victim), the government can abuse its power by labeling everything a crime. Self defense is a right that preexists any government or any piece of paper. The right to life is directly tied to the right to protect it. Using your fist, a stick, a spear, a rock, a knife, your feet, or a gun is immaterial.

And you will find PLENTY of sarcasm here. I try hard to not use it in place of an argument, but fail sometimes. However, you will find us 'gun nuts' are anything but. Some are more passionate than others, some are just plain assholes, but overall I try to maintain civility here which, so far, has required no effort from me.

UBU52 says:

on 6/19/2009 3:54:43 AM

I've actually found that a lot of "gun nuts" are civil. It's really a minority that are just nutty screamers. (Of course, there are liberals of all stripes who are nutty screamers too. I'm reminded of the woman who used to post "BAN GUNS! BAN GUNS!" over and over.)

I have a particular fondness for the gun nuts who like to post photos of the "evil black rifles" and ask me to pick out the evil parts. ;-)

I believe all gun laws should be local, not national. I believe cities should be able to have different laws than rural areas. I've always thought this. This isn't something new for me.

I'm not opposed to guns per se. I'm opposed to guns in the hands of everyman on city streets. Thankfully, I don't live in the South anymore.

mike w. says:

on 6/21/2009 1:08:54 PM

I believe all gun laws should be local, not national. I believe cities should be able to have different laws than rural areas. I've always thought this. This isn't something new for me.

Does this mean that localities should be able to violate rights? The perfect parallel here are Jim Crow laws in the south. Localities had their own laws. How'd that work out. Should the Constitution and individual rights only apply to Americans who live in certain areas? In rural areas only?

Comments have been closed on this topic.

Comments

Archives

Categories

Comments

Archives

Categories

Second Amendment

Sharpest Marbles

Blogroll

Funny, as in Ha-ha

Good Reads

Extended Blogroll

Industry Links