Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 9 of 10
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
casper35





Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 99
Reputation: 25.7Reputation: 25.7Reputation: 25.7

PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc, you have no arguments to support a gun ban. You have completely lost the debate. You have got nothing but blind faith in a failed policies.

1)Three high profile jurisdictions that have a gun ban have:

increased crime rates
increased the amount of illegal guns

2) You have not been able to find any place with a successful outcome after a gun ban

3) Here is a direct comparison of two US towns that responded to crime in opposite ways. One went with a ban (Morton Grove)and the other mandatory gun possession law (Kennesaw).

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun.....he crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/n.....E_ID=55288
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

casper35 wrote:
1)Three high profile jurisdictions that have a gun ban have:
2) You have not been able to find any place with a successful outcome after a gun ban
3) Here is a direct comparison of two US towns that responded to crime in opposite ways. One went with a ban (Morton Grove)and the other mandatory gun possession law (Kennesaw).

I have addressed that type of argument at least twice now....
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
casper35 wrote:
1)Three high profile jurisdictions that have a gun ban have:
2) You have not been able to find any place with a successful outcome after a gun ban
3) Here is a direct comparison of two US towns that responded to crime in opposite ways. One went with a ban (Morton Grove)and the other mandatory gun possession law (Kennesaw).

I have addressed that type of argument at least twice now....


Indeed, with the (correct) observation that correlation is not necessarily causation. This works both ways though, and also undercuts the argument that less guns will equal less crime. As it stands, there is more statistical weight for +guns/-crime than -guns/-crime, but no absolute proof of either.

Speaking generally, I'm curious as to how people who admit little knowledge of criminal behaviour, deviant psychology, the justice system, or firearms issues can be so convinced of the infallibility of their gun control theories.

The 'controllers' have every right to their own opinion of guns, but they're demanding a rather grievous violation of others' liberties when all available evidence, experience, and logic suggests it won't even work.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
This works both ways though, and also undercuts the argument that less guns will equal less crime.

That is why I have not tried to use such correlation arguments.
I have acknowledged that I can not "prove" that a handgun ban will result in less crime, and that I am speculating based on my own opinions. I hope the other side can acknowledge the same.
Quote:
Speaking generally, I'm curious as to how people who admit little knowledge of criminal behaviour, deviant psychology, the justice system, or firearms issues can be so convinced of the infallibility of their gun control theories.

Again, I'm not trying to claim that my arguments are infallible. But on the one hand, I think that there is a good chance that banning handguns will result in less violent crime, and on the other hand is the right for people to possess things which are essentially designed to kill or injure other human beings. In this case, I'd say the former trumps the latter.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
Ok, criminals are "different" than normal people and I know nothing about criminal psychology...How does that refute the points I made in my previous post?

The examples and points make sense for normal citizens but they don't work for criminals. Yes, criminals are different than "normal" citizens. How many people have you robbed, raped or murdered? I hope the answer is zero. If so, what kept you from robbing, raping or murdering? Criminals lack that. It doesn't mean they're less intelligent, diligent or motivated.... but it does mean they're not "normal" and therefore "normal" rules don't apply.

gc wrote:
Huh? I gave an example, but since I have no clue what a gun costs or what it would cost if it were illegal, I made up some numbers. You can substitute those numbers with any numbers you like and it doesn't change the point, that's why I said "I think you get the point".

So your point was that criminals have to budget like those of us who actually earn a living? Why not just say that? Why dance around, comparing the cost of guns to cars which are two completely different commodities?

gc wrote:
As an aside, what's up with you lately, Mac? You used to be my favourite poster on this board. As it is, you've gone from being my favourite poster to being pretty much the only person on this board that I try to ignore. And just when I stopped ignoring you because I thought you were back to your old self, you go back to using your little digs.

Grumpy/impatient from overwork and stress. Sorry if I've been offensive.

-Mac
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
So your point was that criminals have to budget like those of us who actually earn a living? Why not just say that? Why dance around, comparing the cost of guns to cars which are two completely different commodities?

That is what I meant. I don't always have a way with words. I try to use examples to get my points across as clearly as possible, even if my examples are not always perfect. I'm sorry if that comes across as avoiding the subject.
Quote:
Grumpy/impatient from overwork and stress. Sorry if I've been offensive.

:D
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
That is what I meant. I don't always have a way with words. I try to use examples to get my points across as clearly as possible, even if my examples are not always perfect. I'm sorry if that comes across as avoiding the subject.

Examples and comparisons often create more problems than they solve, especially when talking about a divisive subject matter. Applying economic laws like supply & demand to someone who exists outside of a normal economy means any conclusions you might draw would be flawed.

I wasn't trying to be insulting when I said you didn't understand applied criminal psychology. I would be surprised if you did since it's a difficult and complicated topic for a normal person to understand without extensive experience or study. The vast majority of people have no idea about the criminal subculture which partially explains the dark curiosity which many people have about serial killers and other notorious criminals.

gc wrote:
:D

Hey, I'm human. I'll be glad when things settle down.

-Mac
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:

I'm not trying to claim that illegal handguns will disappear if we ban them, just that the number will decrease. It would be nice if we could get rid of all handguns (except for police) but that's not realistic, but we should still try to minimize the number.
People are still shooting guns that are more than 100 years old. My Dad has an old Lee-Enfield from the first world war, still a great gun. Handguns from the second world war are still out there, heck the design hasn't even changed much (do a search for M1911 model colt). I do not think the supply of guns is going to dry up anytime soon, even if there were a complete world wide ban on manufacturing of all handguns.

So you admit a ban is not going to make people safer, so why would you still want a ban?

gc wrote:
The same principles apply to criminals as they do to anyone else. With a fixed amount of money, you can only buy so many things - which requires people to choose. If something is more expensive, they are less likely to choose it. If they want to get more money, they need to work for it - whether that is working overtime, or breaking into a few more houses. Of course, if that was the case they would be doing that already.
That argument really gets me. Why would any criminal want a tool that would increase his chances of success in any given crime 50 fold? It is like saying Vincent Van Gogh would stop buying paint if you raised the price enough. Like saying Hemingway would stop buying ink and paper if it cost too much. Committing crime is what criminals do, and guns make that much easier. Carpenters don't stop buying wood, they take on jobs that pay well instead. For the more nasty crimes, or where you have to confront a lot of people, a gun is to the criminal is as the hammer to the house framer; the most basic and most essential of tools. Going without means you are changing careers.

I guess that means that taxi drivers stopped buying gas when it hit $1.25. Except for some reason, I am still getting cut off by cabs everyday.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
I do not think the supply of guns is going to dry up anytime soon, even if there were a complete world wide ban on manufacturing of all handguns.

Again, I'm not trying to say that there will be zero guns with a ban, just that there will be less handguns.
Quote:
So you admit a ban is not going to make people safer, so why would you still want a ban?

No. I said I could not "prove" it will make people safe, that doesn't mean that I don't strongly believe that it will.
Quote:
It is like saying Vincent Van Gogh would stop buying paint if you raised the price enough.

Of course he would. Maybe he would start sculpting instead.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
Examples and comparisons often create more problems than they solve, especially when talking about a divisive subject matter. Applying economic laws like supply & demand to someone who exists outside of a normal economy means any conclusions you might draw would be flawed.

I'll try to keep that in mind. Personally, I think examples make things easier to understand (and certainly easier for me to get my point across), but I realize that different people have different ways of understanding things. I disagree though that supply and demand does not apply to criminals.
Quote:
Hey, I'm human.

Hey, can't argue with that :lol:
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So what is the criminal equivalent of switching from painting to sculpting? Maybe going from robbing banks to gun running?

Just watched that movie Miami Vice the other day. If guns were valuable enough, I am sure that getting 40,000 Smith & Wessons into Toronto would be no more difficult than getting 6 tons of cocaine from Bogotá Columbia, to Miami Florida. I think you are 100% wrong that there would be any less guns, there would just be another enterprise for organized crime to make money from.

http://www.smith-wesson.com/we.....gory=15708

Seems the price of a quality new pistol is $1000, give or take. Maybe Chinese replicas are cheaper. Anyone know what a gun on the street costs? Is there a formula to predict when the price of something makes smuggling attractive?
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
So what is the criminal equivalent of switching from painting to sculpting? Maybe going from robbing banks to gun running?

Who knows, maybe they'd get a normal job like the rest of us? :wink:
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=328

Quote:
The goals of Michigan’s huge cigarette tax hike were to discourage cigarette smoking, especially among children, and to raise revenue for public schools. The trouble is, excise taxes create smuggling and the bigger the tax, the greater the incentive to smuggle. The tax adds a markup to the price. As long as the smuggler’s markup is smaller, he’ll have a market. When the tax is small, smuggling is not worth the effort. But the bigger the tax, the more profitable the illicit trade becomes. Because our tax makes cigarettes much costlier in Michigan than they are elsewhere, the incentive to smuggle is powerful.


Maybe it would just be better to make it easier for potential victims to get guns instead of harder, maybe they could even avoid being victims in the first place. There has been about 100 years of restrictive gun laws in this country, they haven't worked up to this point but maybe it will be different this time, right?
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
kwlafayette wrote:
So what is the criminal equivalent of switching from painting to sculpting? Maybe going from robbing banks to gun running?

Who knows, maybe they'd get a normal job like the rest of us? :wink:
I do not think that is likely.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
One reason for studying history is that it teaches what works and what does not. Two centuries ago, before Great Britain had an income tax, the British levied excise taxes on everything from liquor and wine to building materials, windows, candles, sugar, tobacco, silk, spices and tea. As British economic historian T. S. Ashton noted, "high duties gave rise to smuggling. The profits of the clandestine trade depended on the existence of a marked difference between prices in England and those abroad." Smuggling was big business, involving thousands of people. By the 1780s, about Ł3 million worth of contraband goods were coming in annually, or about 25 percent of the value of legal imports.

Tea smuggling, especially, was a nightmare. By the 1770s tea drinking had spread from the rich to the general population. But the tax rate on imported tea was an incredible 119 percent. A huge market plus a very high excise tax created an extremely powerful incentive to smuggle. Sound familiar?

The consequences were bad for the British treasury. Revenue losses were huge. Undersold by the smugglers, the East India Company, which held a government-granted monopoly on legal tea imports, was facing ruin. According to estimates by the Company’s accountant in 1784, roughly two-thirds of the tea drunk in Britain was smuggled in.
This is a good article. It lays out pretty well what conditions you want to avoid if you don't like smuggling. Basically, avoid creating a huge price differential for anything.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 9 of 10

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Handgun Ban Petition

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB