Obama: AK-47s belong on battlefield, not streets

Status
Not open for further replies.
The disconnect in all the rehtoric is that the Supreme Court refused to overturn Miller in either Heller or McDonald. In both cases they went out of their way to uphold Miller.
Click to expand...
Actually, Ginsburg suggested in the oral arguments for Heller that Miller "might be deficient."

That said, the Court wasn't asked to overturn Miller, or to address the NFA. They were asked whether the RKBA was an individual right and whether or not the DC ban passed muster.

Had we asked for a review of Miller, we might not have been successful.
 
James - I did a paper on this about a year ago... The UK police actually make station to station judgments on what is and is not a violent crime... It’s not that they don’t have a written standard it’s that the standard gives figures that are higher than the political apparatus wants reported... Hence a certain degree of tinkering with how things get reported happens.
Click to expand...

That is one of the fine legacies of the Blair government. Metrics and targets, making numbers more important than realities.
They have it in the education system and the NHS etc...
Another sublime example of politicians doing what I hate politicians doing: opting for the illusion of action, rather than addressing the real issues of the day.

Everyone knows the numbers are being fudged and everyone turns a blind eye to it and pretends it really the right numbers...
Click to expand...

I quoted death by violence.
I doubt anyone is going to fudge cause of death: "Fatal Stabbing?... Well, put it down as Unsuccessful Heimlich Manoeurvre!" That would be pushing it, even for Whitehall! ;)

Also humans are humans all over and the strong will often prey and the weak and even more so when they know the weak cannot physically fight off the predators and arent allowed guns to even the relative differences...
Click to expand...

I've never disputed that.

All the same, surely you agree that we do not all give in to the predatory instinct with equal ease. Some societies do have lower crime than others. People in villages leave their front doors unlocked, whereas those, in cities have 20lbs of steel strapped to theirs.

Interesting that it appears to be a solely human condition: in the wild most predators tend to attack those of another species, rather than their own. We tend to target almost exclusively our own... nice!

This is all that I am disputing:
Crime levels and gun ownership are not a simple inverse correlation as shown by the UK's high crime levels and lack of guns in society and the US' high crime levels with record levels of gun ownership.

A gun will change outcomes.
Possibly. But clearly not the incidence.

Hence why, for me, bringing in crime levels to the debate isn't particularly enlightening.

Hope your doing well James
Click to expand...

I am doing exceptionally well :) :
I ordered way more than was sensible on the menu last night and yet I finished the lot. Feeling quite pleased with myself!
As the day progresses , I may regret it...
 
This is all that I am disputing:
Crime levels and gun ownership are not a simple inverse correlation as shown by the UK's high crime levels and lack of guns in society and the US' high crime levels with record levels of gun ownership.

A gun will change outcomes.
Possibly. But clearly not the incidence.
Click to expand...

The incidence? How about this... In any "sub-society" such as a large urban area, there tends to be more "violent" crime committed by predators for personal gains than in very small or rural towns...

But if you compare only large urban areas of America we find that the big cities where gun carry and/or self defense are more accepted or expected you find less "violent" crime for personal gain by these predators... For an instance the state of Florida was suffering an unacceptable daily number of VIOLENT carjackings... So the state either changed or publicized an already legal method of gun carry in an auto... NO PERMIT WOULD BE NEEDED FOR THE FOLLOWING... Any legal gun owner can carry a firearm ANYWHERE in the auto with the exceptions being NOT IN PLAIN SIGHT and NOT ON THE PERSON WITHOUT A CCW PERMIT...

Anywhere? YES!!! The gun must only be "encased" with the following being accepted... Glovebox, center console etc... A holster is a legal encasement device according to florida law so putting your pistol in a holster now allows gun to be tucked between seats, under the seat, in a door pocket etc...

When this change took place we immediately saw a down turn in violent carjackings with the predators now aware anyone may be armed and the law saying a carjacking attempt IS one of the "aggravated felony" crimes makes lethal force not only legal but protections for the shooter took the ball squarely out of the court of the evil and bounced it right into the hands of the law abiding...

Has the rate of carjackings stayed so low? I am unsure...

But the rate of violent Home Invasions did also drop with the passing of our "castle doctrine"...

I think if "violent crime for personal gains" was able to be tracked accurately, we would find the armed populace suffers less than the unarmed...

Brent
 
When this change took place we immediately saw a down turn in violent carjackings with the predators now aware anyone may be armed and the law saying a carjacking attempt IS one of the "aggravated felony" crimes makes lethal force not only legal but protections for the shooter took the ball squarely out of the court of the evil and bounced it right into the hands of the law abiding.
Click to expand...
In cases like that, we can certainly show correlation, but we can't prove causality. That is to say, we can show that a category of crime decreased at the same time gun laws were relaxed, but we can't prove that it decreased because gun laws were relaxed.

The relationship seems evident, and it probably is, but we'd have a hard time proving it.
 
When this change took place we immediately saw a down turn in violent carjackings with the predators now aware anyone may be armed and the law saying a carjacking attempt IS one of the "aggravated felony" crimes makes lethal force not only legal but protections for the shooter took the ball squarely out of the court of the evil and bounced it right into the hands of the law abiding...
Click to expand...

OK.
So in the case of one State and two seperate types of offence, a change in gun law has probably effected a change in rates of incidence.

That is a far cry from saying that guns will affect the incidence of all crimes, or that the lack of guns will make crime rise.

There has to be the propensity for crime in the first place.

And, as I've said before, if you decide to follow that logic, then crime in the US should be very low, given its rank of world's highest rate of private gun ownership.

We know that is not the case.

So, irrespective of these two examples which, in isolation, uphold a direct correlation, overall any correlation is far from distinct and will have far more influential factors at play aside from guns. Guns may well play a part, but not the part....

On the whole the threat of bodily harm does not seem to stop people from deciding they're going to rob, or kill. If it was that simple, the States with the death penalty would have a lower incidence of murder than those without, yet in fact the opposite is true... Something greater is at play.

I simply feel that playing the crime rates card doesn't necessarily work in the favour of those who wish to defend gun ownership.

Rather than "guns help lower crime rates", for me the better arguement "guns allow me to defend myself when the police can't or won't while we all wait for the government to tackle the issues that cause high crime rates in the first place"...

And, as such, using the UK as an example of how the lack of guns causes crime to rise is misrepresentative, IMO.

By contrast a statement such as "illegally owned guns contribute to a higher crime rate" I think would apply to the US, the UK, Estonia, Australia and indeed most places...
 
Last edited:
First, to clarify my position. I think the gun laws we have are already too stringent. For example, we should be able to purchase sound suppressors without the rigamarole we have to put up with now. Also, it should be incumbent on NCIS to notify individuals of why they were declined the purchase of a firearm, not the other way around like it is now. For that matter, I don't see the reason for having to transfer a firearm from one FFL in one state to another FFL in another state to purchase a firearm, we are already going through the NICS check, so why does it matter which state I do the paperwork in? There are many more things that I think are totally outrageous that infringe on our rights, but by now you should get the idea of where I stand on these issues.

The reason we are defending against statements like the AK-47 crack is that we have set ourselves up as constantly being in the position of defending, rather than being proactive on these issues.

For example, in an interview after the Aurora shooting the Governor of Colorado stated that this was a mental health issue not a gun control issue. I for one agree with him, as well as agree with other people that make this connection.

I think instead of isolating ourselves into defending gun rights we should be proactive in looking for solutions.

Not that I am comfortable with the idea, and this is entirely speculation. If it turns out that this kid has a mental health issue and was on some prescription medication that has side effects including aggresiveness and violence, for example Luxol. We should be making the focus of the issue instead be how mental health care failed. Why wasn't this kid admitted to a mental health care facility, why didn't the psychiatrist fail to observe the behavior change that led to this.

I will admit, for a while I thought it may be a reasonable solution to prevent people with mental health issues, specifically personality disorders that lead to violence and agression wither on their own or as a result of medication, be prevented from owning firearms. However, that would not have stopped this kid from setting off the bomb in his apartment. The only way to have stoped him would have been to remove him from society, which the system allows for by being admitted into a mental health care facility where he can't harm anyone.

In a nutshell, the reason that we are constantly defending gun rights is that we fail to be proactive, and making an issue of, the real causes as well as how the current system fails in these situations.

So, my $.005 is that until we, and by we I mean the political right as well as members of the political left that support gunrights, and organizations like the NRA, start being more vocal about the failings of mental health care in instances like this we will always be playing defense and our gun rights will slowly erode.
 
Written by: Pond, James Pond

Interestingly, for what it's worth, reported deaths by violence per 100K is 3 times higher in the US than the UK (6.3 to 1.2, respectively)....
Click to expand...

Not trying to hijack the thread, but do you care to share your source?

I too wrote an essay on this subject not long ago, here is a brief article I used at the time: Here.

That article is over three years old, but still very much true I believe. So it would appear, that while your fine country has a much higher rate of violent crimes, it also has a much lower rate of murders. I hate to say it, but it certainly looks like a case for the "gun-control" crowd. But of course some could argue it was due to different cultures and such.
 
here is a brief article I used at the time
Click to expand...

Aaah, the good ol' Daily Mail. Reliably scaring Middle-England in their suburbs for the last 30 years. Not saying what they wrote is wrong, but they do like to sensationalise!!

Here is my source. Very interesting site. Bit morbid, mind...

I found it here. I mis-quoted. The rates were 6.5 and 1.1 respectively. There are also stats on all the other killers: heart disease, cancer etc. All very cheerful...

I hate to say it, but it certainly looks like a case for the "gun-control" crowd.
Click to expand...

I think that is where the problem is. People try to promote it as an antidote to crime. It is not. Not for me, anyway.

I have a licence that for self and property defence and concealed carry. Handguns, long arms, anything up to semi-auto.
The laws here are pretty relaxed by EU standards.

Yet the crime rate here is one of the highest of the EU countries. Murder rate is the highest, I believe.

For me, promoting freer access to legal gun ownership is about a right to being able to defend oneself irrespective of crime rates, not that certain social stats warrant a gun.

If a family man is faced with the two meat-heads in his living room and he's only got a rusty claw-hammer, he's not going to give two hoots about whether his country's got a crime rate of 50% or 5%. He'll be thinking "Oooooh .....!"

But of course some could argue it was due to different cultures and such.
Click to expand...

I absolutely believe that one reason that comparing countries this way is counter-productive is the cultural aspect. Culture is, after all, the guiding system to our social behaviours.

It is easy to forget, given the common language, that the US, the UK, Australie, New Zealand etc are all very different cultures with different social values and demographies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aaah, the good ol' Daily Mail.
Click to expand...

Ha ha, I loathe using news-articles these days, but I needed some "sensationalism" in the essay as you say. However, the data is good.

The rates were 6.5 and 1.1 respectively.
Click to expand...

Excellent site, I surrender the field to you sir. UNdata confirms the site you gave. Much as I hate to admit it, you fellows practice the art of fist-cuffs much better than we do here. Or don't take your fights quite as seriously :D

For me, promoting freer access to legal gun ownership is about a right to being able to defend oneself irrespective of crime rates, not that certain social stats warrant a gun.
Click to expand...

You're preaching to the choir, valid points all the same. :)

A pleasure to meet you by the way Mr. Pond, I enjoyed reading your posts during my lurking days ;)
 
Much as I hate to admit it, you fellows practice the art of fist-cuffs much better than we do here.
Click to expand...

I think, for the most part, it is more the "art of windmilling"!!
Very few points awarded for style!! (ever seen the fight in Bridget Jones' Diary? Just about sums it up!!:D)

A pleasure to meet you by the way Mr. Pond, I enjoyed reading your posts during my lurking days
Click to expand...

Nice to meet you too!!
And welcome to what is my "go-to" repository of firearms knowledge and discourse: TFL!!
 
I live on the south Texas border with Mexico and am armed as much as possible. I don't live in or near a city. If you took away my guns (ak 47, m92 Yugo krinkov) I'd essentially lose control of my property. It's that simple.
 
Can anyone provide a link to data on American crime statistics that parses out cities like Chicago, New York, Washington DC, etc. As those areas have the most restrictive firearm laws and for the most part also seem to have the highest crime rates.

I was just hoping to determine how we would stand up to other countries in the crime rate gun argument if we eliminated the anti-gun areas of the country.
 
cliff987 said:
Can anyone provide a link to data on American crime statistics that parses out cities like Chicago, New York, Washington DC, etc. As those areas have the most restrictive firearm laws and for the most part also seem to have the highest crime rates.
Click to expand...
How about the FBI Uniform Crime Reports? You can dig around and find the cities you're curious about: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr/
 
To get a real AK 47 you need a class 3 license and the selector switch has 3 positions where the look alikes they sell have 2 positions but how many people in the media and the W.H really understand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top