Liberal arguments for supporting gun ownership rights

[Chris]

Local Background Checks, Fewer Gun Deaths

 

[Chris]

Nevada leads in gun deaths, ownership | NevadaAppeal.com

 

[Chris]

The association between the purchase of a handgun and homicide or suicide. -- Cummings et al. 87 (6): 974 -- American Journal of Public Health

 

[Chris]

Not related, but my personal favorite....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWXVc7iMBlE]YouTube - Accidental gun shots[/ame]

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

You missed the briefing Pub but I'll give you a clue.


Yes... and its always a good time to point out that the leftists in Australia, as well as in the UK do not 'view' there to be a 'right' to defend one's life or those within your sphere of influence with a firearm... Diur has expressed many times how his state looks dimly upon criminals who use guns... but what ya need to understand is that they've criminalized the use of a firearm in self defense.

Wrong on an epic scale.

The laws in various jurisdictions in Australia base self defence on the English common law notion but have extended it considerably in some cases.


Hey I hear ya sport... the only problem ya have is that where people have used a gun to defend themselves, they've been prosecuted and sent to prison... sure the prosecutors argue that the use of the firearm is an offensive act which goes beyond self defense... so the stats will be skewed... but if you use a firearm to defend yourself in Australia AND in the UK... you're going to prison.

PERIOD.

 

[Diuretic]

Di.....question if i may....this CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION ACT,is dated 1935.....has any of this been changed or amended in the time since then?....

Questions gratefully received Harry. Yes it has been. The citation style here is to put the original year of the Act (1935) in the short, short version and then the year of last amendment in the short version and the big long title in the very long version. The Criminal Law Consolidation Act in 1935 consolidated, as it says, a bunch of separate criminal acts (eg Offences Against the Person Act) and brought them into one. It was last amended in 2007 so it's CLCA 1935-2007.

 

[Diuretic]

You missed the briefing Pub but I'll give you a clue.


Yes... and its always a good time to point out that the leftists in Australia, as well as in the UK do not 'view' there to be a 'right' to defend one's life or those within your sphere of influence with a firearm... Diur has expressed many times how his state looks dimly upon criminals who use guns... but what ya need to understand is that they've criminalized the use of a firearm in self defense.

Wrong on an epic scale.

The laws in various jurisdictions in Australia base self defence on the English common law notion but have extended it considerably in some cases.


Hey I hear ya sport... the only problem ya have is that where people have used a gun to defend themselves, they've been prosecuted and sent to prison... sure the prosecutors argue that the use of the firearm is an offensive act which goes beyond self defense... so the stats will be skewed... but if you use a firearm to defend yourself in Australia AND in the UK... you're going to prison.

PERIOD.

Pub the current self defence laws in my jurisdiction were passed as a result of pressure from the public and also in the wake of a case where an old bloke defended himself with a shotgun from a home invasion and shot the two attackers dead. Under the law as it existed then he would have had no defence but the jury decided otherwise.

Excessive Force

The final poster is right on the money! (you have to scroll to the end)

 

[Bern80]

I have posted it many times.

State Rankings--Statistical Abstract of the United States--Violent Crime Per 100,000 Population - 2004

That isn't evidence dumbass. Those are statistics. I guess this has to be explained to you again. Two things happening simultaneously does NOT equal causation.


Again here is what you need to show:

1) Evidence that shows strict gun control CAUSES viloent crime to go down.

2) That failure to pass a background check prevented a violent crime.

3) That failure to pass a background check did NOT result in someone obtaining a firearm illegally AND using it to commit a violent crime.

Providing that evidence is the only way you have a case.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Pub the current self defence laws in my jurisdiction were passed as a result of pressure from the public and also in the wake of a case where an old bloke defended himself with a shotgun from a home invasion and shot the two attackers dead. Under the law as it existed then he would have had no defence but the jury decided otherwise.

Excessive Force

SO what I hear ya saying Diur is that the law established that the use of a firearm in self defense was a crime, but that reasonable people rejected the left-think, ultimately revising that law... HUH... Now I wonder what principle those jurist used in bucking the left-think which in essence stripped the individual of their right to defend their life from unjustified threat?

A good sign indeed, and a point which validates my point. You're a good man Diur... if misguided in spots.

 

[Chris]

That isn't evidence dumbass. Those are statistics. I guess this has to be explained to you again. Two things happening simultaneously does NOT equal causation.


Again here is what you need to show:

1) Evidence that shows strict gun control CAUSES viloent crime to go down.

2) That failure to pass a background check prevented a violent crime.

3) That failure to pass a background check did NOT result in someone obtaining a firearm illegally AND using it to commit a violent crime.

Providing that evidence is the only way you have a case.

Statistics ARE evidence.

Insults are NOT.

In general states with loose gun laws have more violent crime.

Local background checks are effective at reducing homicides, suicides, and violent crime.

Gun regulations are only one factor of course. Tough sentencing is another important factor.

Keep the bad guys from getting guns and keep them off the street.

 

[del]

Statistics ARE evidence.

Insults are NOT.

In general states with loose gun laws have more violent crime.

Local background checks are effective at reducing homicides, suicides, and violent crime.

Gun regulations are only one factor of course. Tough sentencing is another important factor.

Keep the bad guys from getting guns and keep them off the street.

moron

 

[Chris]

moron

Moron

 

[Zoom-boing]

Statistics ARE evidence.

Insults are NOT.

In general states with loose gun laws have more violent crime.

Local background checks are effective at reducing homicides, suicides, and violent crime.

Gun regulations are only one factor of course. Tough sentencing is another important factor.

Keep the bad guys from getting guns and keep them off the street.

Chris, they're criminals. Do you really, honestly think these types of people go around buying guns legally? Think about it. Gun regulations won't do anything about criminals getting a hold of guns.

 

[Diuretic]

SO what I hear ya saying Diur is that the law established that the use of a firearm in self defense was a crime, but that reasonable people rejected the left-think, ultimately revising that law... HUH... Now I wonder what principle those jurist used in bucking the left-think which in essence stripped the individual of their right to defend their life from unjustified threat?

A good sign indeed, and a point which validates my point. You're a good man Diur... if misguided in spots.

I'm a reasonable bloke Pub - most of the time

The rule has always been proportionality Pub, there may well be a situation where use of a firearm is proportionate and therefore legal, it's never been outright illegal to use a firearm for self defence.

The point about the change to self defence laws here, in the wake of the incident I mentioned, was in the interpretation of the threat.

The old rule was that the actions of the person claiming self defence had to interpreted objectively - in other words, what would the fictional reasonable person do? This was patently unfair because any individual interprets a situation from their own senses.

So the major change in the law was to move from that objective interpretation to see the incident as the defending person saw it and then to judge if it were reasonable, given all the circumstances.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Chris, they're criminals. Do you really, honestly think these types of people go around buying guns legally? Think about it. Gun regulations won't do anything about criminals getting a hold of guns.

Zoom....Chris has been told this by at least every poster rebuffing his BS.....he just cant buy it....the gang bangers in S.Central L.A.,as well as the other gangs nation wide,go down to the local gun shop to buy their guns.....drug cartel guys do this also....interesting,i would have never thought they got em legally....

 

[Chris]

Zoom....Chris has been told this by at least every poster rebuffing his BS.....he just cant buy it....the gang bangers in S.Central L.A.,as well as the other gangs nation wide,go down to the local gun shop to buy their guns.....drug cartel guys do this also....interesting,i would have never thought they got em legally....

Report Links State Gun Laws To Rates of Slayings, Trafficking - washingtonpost.com

 

[Chris]

Chris, they're criminals. Do you really, honestly think these types of people go around buying guns legally? Think about it. Gun regulations won't do anything about criminals getting a hold of guns.

Report Links State Gun Laws To Rates of Slayings, Trafficking - washingtonpost.com

 

[Zoom-boing]

Report Links State Gun Laws To Rates of Slayings, Trafficking - washingtonpost.com

From the article:

The report examined how guns travel from the legal market to the black market and into criminals' hands, as well as the relationship between a state's gun laws and the probability that it will be a source of guns recovered in out-of-state crimes.

"Many law enforcement officials have long maintained that a pattern of illegal gun trafficking exists between states," the report says. "This report confirms these accounts, suggesting there is an interstate illegal gun market driven, at least in part, by the relative ease of access to guns in particular states."

Nearly all guns recovered in crimes are initially sold legally, the report says. Many that wind up on the black market were stolen from homes, stores or vehicles."

Do some criminals purchase their guns legally? No doubt and background checks may help decrease sales to these individuals. But your assumption that most criminals buy guns legally is really out there. They're criminals; 'law abiding' isn't on their radar.

 

[Chris]

From the article:

The report examined how guns travel from the legal market to the black market and into criminals' hands, as well as the relationship between a state's gun laws and the probability that it will be a source of guns recovered in out-of-state crimes.

"Many law enforcement officials have long maintained that a pattern of illegal gun trafficking exists between states," the report says. "This report confirms these accounts, suggesting there is an interstate illegal gun market driven, at least in part, by the relative ease of access to guns in particular states."

Nearly all guns recovered in crimes are initially sold legally, the report says. Many that wind up on the black market were stolen from homes, stores or vehicles."

Do some criminals purchase their guns legally? No doubt and background checks may help decrease sales to these individuals. But your assumption that most criminals buy guns legally is really out there. They're criminals; 'law abiding' isn't on their radar.

Local background checks help keep guns out of the hand of criminals. This has been proven.

Does this mean no criminal anywhere will ever get a gun? No, it doesn't. It just means that local background checks are one effective tool in keeping guns out of the hands of the bad guys.

 

[garyd]

Chris in fact the evidence shows the exact opposite. Australian Gun control laws resulted in slightly fewer gun homicides but a huge increase in rape, assault, and home invasion type robberies.

Most attempts to show that gun control equals crime control founder upon any of several diffrent statistical anomalies.

It has not been proven by the statistics you have provided that local back ground checks prevented bad guys from getting guns as the difference between the fed checks and local checks lays well within the margin of error as another poster has already told you.

What you don't know about statistical analysis would and likely has filled several books.