America's Great Gun Game--a new book on gun control

[WSM MAGNUM]

I also told you that I debated the issue. My partner and I won every debate, both affirmative and negative, on this topic. Some said I should take the gun rights side and write a book. This would not be difficult for me, but I do not have the time. I read everything I can on all sides of the issue. I try to view everything I read with an open mind.

Mr. McDowell, I would like to see you debate the issue with these scholars.
http://www.gunscholar.org/

 

[Earl McDowell]

Hi! It is Earl the Pearl again. That's what people call me if they had seen me play basketball 30 years ago. It is really going to be fun to analyze all of your statements. It would be nice to have a group of historians check the accuracy of all of our statements. I know you appear to be "all knowing," but I will readily admit, I'm far frow perfect. I make mistakes every day.

You did not tell me how we are going to lower the firearm death rate in our great country. So all of this other babble doesn't answer the question. I'll give you some more time. It might be that I'm as confused and stupid as you think I am, or it could be that I want to solve this gun problem. I beleive you don't want guns to be registered. I also outline a number of ways in my book, but you probably wouldn't agree with any on them, so I won't waste my time sharing that information unless you ask me to.

You obviously know we have significantly more death from firearms than any other industrialized nation. Homor Cummings indicated 70 years ago "Show me a man who doesn't want his gun registered and I will show you a man who shouldn't have a gun." I don't necessary agree with that broad statement, but I would welcome the opportunity to have my gun registered. Colin Powell would agree with me.



Over 260 have been murdered in Philadelphia this year, Would you like to know the histtory of these guns used to commit these murders? I read that 90 percent of guns were legally purchased.

So boys and girls we have a problem. The problem is that we have 30,000 death a year from firearms. Even in Minneapolis crime is on the increase and the Police Chiedf is calling for 40 more police officers. Oh! I'm sorry

 

[M1 Shooter]

You obviously know we have significantly more death from firearms than any other industrialized nation.

You obviously haven't done much research.
Read this.
http://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html
And this.
http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html

As you can see from the above links, Mexico, Brazil, and Northern Ireland, among others, all have higher firearm homicide rates than the US.
Are these not "industrialized" nations?
How do you explain this discrepancy with your "research"?
Did you know that all three of those countries have very strict gun control laws, yet the firearms homicide rates are still higher than ours?

Since you like quoting famous people, here is a quote for you to contemplate from one of the Founders of our country.

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that it has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are of such a nature…Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (Beccaria, ON CRIME AND PUNISHMENT 87-88, cited from Thomas Jefferson, COMMON PLACE BOOK 314)

Now, to answer your question about reducing gun deaths, I believe a step in the right direction would be a national concealed carry law. If people can carry guns anywhere in the country the criminals will think twice about attacking anyone.
Increased education on gun safety, specifically in schools, would further reduce accidental deaths with firearms, which incedently have been steadily declining for the past 30 years.

 

[Henry Bowman]

Even in Minneapolis crime is on the increase and the Police Chiedf is calling for 40 more police officers. Oh! I'm sorry

So 40 more people with guns "on the street"? How will that help?

You did not tell me how we are going to lower the firearm death rate in our great country. So all of this other babble doesn't answer the question. I'll give you some more time.

Perhaps the focus needs to be on reducing unjustified homicide by any means, not just those resulting from a gunshot wound.

So boys and girls we have a problem. The problem is that we have 30,000 death a year from firearms.

Half of those are suicides. Eliminating (or registering or restricting) guns will not reduce suicides, only change the tool used. See, for example, Japan. In any event, even the larger number is dwarfed by deaths by other machines, such as cars.

 

[jfh]

I read that 90 percent of guns were legally purchased.

I have no reason to doubt this--most firearms are in fact (initially) legally purchased. But--the source, please?

This sounds an awful lot like the slippery slope argument out of the gun banners--they were legally purchased, but those were 'straw buyers', or they were then stolen...or whatever. The end conclusion is that if we registered the firearms we could then monitor the firearms' "usage" more closely.

The trouble is, we already do 'register' legally-purchased firearms.

If your presumption is that restricting legally-purchased firearms will reduce the death rate, then I think you have to expand your a priori assumptions. For now, an implicit assumption seems to be that 'we' are all alike in our values, behavior, and so on. I would submit that the personal attributes of the victims and perpetrators in the Philadelphia violence subculture are noticably different from the posters on this board, and noticably different from your own (academic and personal) subculture.

Give me an idea about how to address subculture variance in behavior without simply 'registering' the tools they use, and we might start to get somewhere--IF there is a recognition of the concepts of personal responsibility and ethical behavior.

Jim H.

 

[bluto]

Well said Art.

The linchpin of almost every argument for restricting gun ownership begins with reinterpreting the Second Amendment to mean that it somehow grants a right to government rather than the people. It is also the only amendment that liberals choose to diminish rather than expand.

The problem is that the Second Amendment grants a right. It appears in the Bill of Rights. No other amendments of the original ten speak of the State having a right. Nowhere are rights recognized for the government but denied to the people. So, did the Framers of the Constitution understand "the people" to mean individuals in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth but understand "the people" to mean "the State" in the Second? Of course not. In the Tenth Amendment they clearly distinguished between the States and the people, so we have to assume they knew the difference. They also knew the difference between Militia and the people.

Article I, sec. 8 makes this all too clear. The Constitution allowed government to direct and call forth the Militia, not "the people". The only actions the government is allowed are restricted to organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia. While the Second Amendment indicates that a Militia is a sufficient reason for the right of the people to keep and bear arms it nowhere implies that it is essential or a condition for forbidding or infringing upon the right of gun ownership.

It is also worth noting that nowhere else in the Constitution is the possession or the right of gun ownership stated or implied for anyone but the people.

What the Second amendment does is say that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Subordinate to that, but as a high concern to the Framers at the time of the adoption was that combined with Article I, sec. 8, some of those (not even all!) who are in a Militia may be, under certain circumstances, employed and directed by the government. Period.

 

[I LIKE IT!]

Earl, assuming your not a troll, excuse me but you only point out the number of deaths by firearms, how about the number of lives saved because of them.

You seem to be failing in seeing the bigger picture of reality. Bad people will always be around, that is human nature but I honestly beleive there are more good folks so as long as they(good folks) aren't handicaped because you and I know criminals don't give two cents about the law.

I pressume you wished we lived in a World where firearms where never invented, a pipe dream, you can't move back only forward.

So "my" solution to solving "criminals"(notice nothing about guns) is to punish them accordingly so that if a murdered is found guilty instead of rotting in jail for life he is immediatly "put down".( excuse me if I don't come off as PC)

I think it's our justice system that fails ous, if criminals knew the punishment of there crime was worse than a couple months in the pokey only to be let loose on society agian they would think twice before raping a young lady, even if the young lady is still harmed if cought the criminal would not see the light of day to "try agian". I think we're too soft on convicted criminals, send em to the gallows.

 

[White Horseradish]

You did not tell me how we are going to lower the firearm death rate in our great country.

And you did not answer a single one of the questions asked of you.

Speaking of questions, there are a couple that I have asked just about everyone I have discussed gun control with. I would like very much to hear a valid and clear answer. Here it is:

Why do you separate gun violence and deaths from any other violence and death? What makes it special? Why do you appear to ignore other violence?

I don't have particularly high hopes for hearing your answer, since, as I mentioned above, you have not exhibited a desire to answer any questions here.

could be that I want to solve this gun problem.

Entirely possible. However, simply having an abstract desire to do something good does not in any way mean that your proposed solutions are worth anything. I, for instance, have a plan for world peace that involves free cable TV and free pot for everyone. Whoever heard of a violent pothead?

Homor Cummings indicated 70 years ago "Show me a man who doesn't want his gun registered and I will show you a man who shouldn't have a gun." I don't necessary agree with that broad statement, but I would welcome the opportunity to have my gun registered. Colin Powell would agree with me.

Could you provide me with a single good reason for why I should value the opinion of Homer Cummings in this matter? Having held an office does not make him automatically infallible. Come to think of it, I don't really care what Colin Powell thinks either.

I have my own opinions and do not need to borrow them from others.

You obviously know we have significantly more death from firearms than any other industrialized nation.

Would you feel better if these people were killed by other means? I hear in Russia frying pans and crystal vases are popular.

 

[IA_farmboy]

You did not tell me how we are going to lower the firearm death rate in our great country. So all of this other babble doesn't answer the question.

Irrelevant. The means of the murder is irrelevant. Whether the person was shot, strangled, bound and burned, or poisoned is irrelevant. The victim is just as dead.

I've read a couple things this morning, reports that people in this thread offered as reference. Other than my jocular response that uninventing the firearm would eliminate deaths due to firearms I think I have a more reasonable solution.

In the studies I have read the rate of deaths, suicides, and violent crime have little correlation to firearm ownership. If a firearm is unavailable people will find other means to murder, commit suicide, or arm themselves in the act of theft. The firearm did not cause the crime, other social and economic factors have. Someone as learned as yourself should have come to that conclusion.

The conclusion I have come to is that guns don't kill, poverty kills. Those that are poor become desperate for food, drugs, or whatever they can steal and sell to get more food or drugs. Poor people tend to be uneducated people. The uneducated tend to be unemployed, or working for a low wage.

People that lack the means for a meaningful and enjoyable life are not only more likely to kill others but are more likely to kill themselves. An interesting statistic I have read is that a person is more likely to take their own life than the life of another. This is true in all countries I have seen statistics from. The availability of firearms showed no correlation, that I can recall, to suicide rates. When a firearm is unavailable a rope, poison, or a car left running in a garage tend to become acceptable alternatives to many.

So, doctor, if you want to lessen firearm deaths, or violent deaths in general, (other than enforce rules and laws that already exist) I suggest you lessen poverty.

 

[Henry Bowman]

Over 260 have been murdered in Philadelphia this year, Would you like to know the histtory of these guns used to commit these murders? I read that 90 percent of guns were legally purchased.

Would I like to know? Not really. It doesn't really have a bearing on whether or not I have a Constitutionally-protected fundumental right. A better question would be to ask the history of those who committed the murders (by any means). How many had prior records of violent crimes? How manywere committed by people who were in this country illegally? How many of them were already prohibited from legally possessing a firearm under another ineffective federal gun restriction? How many of the victims were ingaged in illegal activity at the time they were killed (drug deals, killed in self defense, etc.)?

 

[Regolith]

It should be noted that while you include suicides into your statistics (and suicides make up the greater bulk of firearm deaths), suicides of and by themselves are NOT effected by the availability of guns. I.E., if there are no guns, suicides will not go down.

Suicide is a cultural phenomena. It is not affected by the availability of easy means to kill oneself. If a firearm is not present, self-strangulation via hanging, overdose, falling, etc will be used in. Neatly highlighting this fact are suicide statistics from the UN's WHO.

http://fathersforlife.org/health/who_suicide_rates.htm

http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/suiciderates/en/

Notice that Japan, where obtaining a firearm legally is almost impossible, has a suicide rate that is greater than that of the United States. So does France, Denmark, and Canada. All nations that strictly regulate firearm possession.

Notice that the highest rates of suicide are in former Soviet countries. Places where government corruption and economic instability are high.

Essentially, your not going to keep anyone from committing suicide if firearms are removed. They'll simply use another method.

This is similar to what will happen to murder and violent crime rates should firearms be removed. Criminals will simply use another method to kill. The only difference will be that their victims be unarmed, and unable to fight back.

The method to reducing violent crime is NOT to disarm victims, but to lock up criminals and keep them off the streets. Another method would be to address social issues that cause people to commit crimes in the first place. That is to say deal with the drug and gang problems that are the cause of the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the US.

It should also be noted that gun control is rooted in racist policies, and that modern gun control is not much different. Historically, gun control was first used in the United States to keep African Americans from owning firearms, first when they were slaves and later when they were emancipated after the Civil War.

Today, gun control policies keep people who are poor from owning a means of self defense. In many areas like New York and areas in California, legally obtaining a firearm and/or the license to conceal or carry one is almost impossible unless you are well connected. Licenses are expensive and difficult or impossible to obtain. This keeps effective self defense out of the hands of many middle and lower class Americans, and is a travesty of justice.

 

[El Tejon]

How do we lower the death rate from firearms?

Two ways:

1. Mandatory instruction in firearms beginning at the grade school level. No issuance of a driver's license until children can pass basic safety and marksmanship. No graduation until children are able to qualify with the M16 and be certified in weapons handling in all platforms: pistol, shotgun, carbine, rifle. Federally funded shooting ranges and ammunition with which to practice. Tax credits (not deductions) for attending shooting schools (Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, inter alia).

2. Prosecute those who criminally misuse firearms. If cowardly men sometimes misuse firearms, the proper response is the gallows, not the infringement of civil rights. One cannot be punished for merely exercising a constitutional right as the Supreme Court as held over and over.

Gun registration

1. Gun registration is illegal. The Supreme Court has held that in First Amendment cases that licensing and registration is not a permissible activity for the government to conduct. If it is illegal for the First Amendment, it is illegal for the Second Amendment as there is no hierarchy of civil rights.

2. Criminals, by Supreme Court command, are immune from registration. Only the law abiding would be impacted by gun registration.

3. Registration has been proven feckless over and over again whether in D.C., Chicago, New York City, etc. It is worthless as a crime solution.

4. Registration focuses upon the inert mechanical device and not evil human will. It is a worthless allocation of public resources to focus on wood and metal instead of criminals.

5. Registration is unworkable. In addition to criminals being immune, otherwise law abiding citizens will not comply with the law, weakening respect for civil authority. Firearms are easy to make and can be manufactured by over half of the members of this board alone.

6. I could give a flying fig what Colin Powell thinks. If he wants to research his family's history he will find that African-Americans (Caribbean islands) were the early victims of "gun control". If he wishes to assume the mantel of a slave, he will do it alone and without my emulation. If you or others wish to register your guns and ignore the history of what registration brings, from the Nazis to the UK, then by all means, but I will not participate.

Philadelphia

1. I could care less about Philadelphia. If people are murdered, then it is up to the good people of that city to stop it.

2. No government will attack my civil rights because of the actions of criminals. No government will tell me that I cannot write because people commit Forgery. No government will tell me that I cannot speak because people commit Fraud with their voice.

 

[txgolfer45]

Earl,

Ronald Reagan disagrees with you....

“You won’t get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There’s only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up, and if you don’t actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time... It’s a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience.” —Ronald Reagan, 1983

Do you believe a person has the right to defend himself? It's a simple question that you so far have refused to answer!

Bluto,

Actually, the 2nd amendment doesn't grant the right to keep and bear arms. It says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Our forefathers had that right prior to the Bill of Rights. The 2nd Amendment affirms that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[Earl McDowell]

Hi This is Earl McDowell again. I don't know what I did, but I was unable to complete my statement. I did read your responses. What the responses say to me is that because we have liberal gun laws criminal have guns and law-abiding citizens need to protect themselves. Is this correct In England. I spent two weeks in Italy in March. My book was not out, so I did not have the benefit of your comments. Everyone I talked to said they would not want to be in New York, Philadelphia or even Minneapolis because of guns. I remember walking in a number of large cities late at night with no fear of being shot or robbed.

The question, and it is a sincere one, how can we as a soicety lower the number of gun deaths in our country? I indiacted that the object was to lower the death rate by five percent each year for five years. What are your suggestions? I'm sure law-makers, police officers and the the general public are interested in your solutions?

Please respond only to these questions

 

[El Tejon]

As I stated above:

1. Train the entire body of the people to use firearms in a safe manner.

2. Prosecute those who misuse firearms in a criminal manner.

 

[springmom]

You did not tell me how we are going to lower the firearm death rate in our great country. So all of this other babble doesn't answer the question. I'll give you some more time.

On the contrary. I certainly did answer it, in relation to the violence against women. We lower the firearm death rate by encouraging concealed carry across the country. In states where concealed carry is the law, crime DECREASES. Predators look for people who cannot fight back. Those who have learned to defend themselves are not "easy prey", and criminals think twice before preying on someone who may be ready and able to fight back.

See, the problem here is that you are not engaging in debate with us; you are dropping in and playing with us, making statements but refusing to debate the historical record, the statistics, and the experience represented in these posts. You "empathize" soulfully with women who suffer from domestic violence, but you ignore altogether the answers presented for those women.

The basic problem with your position is that you offer no hope, no means of defense, for these women. They are smaller, weaker, less able on the whole to fight physically. What do you offer them, if you take away the ability to "even the field" by allowing them firearms for self defense? What is a 110 lb woman supposed to DO when faced with a 250 pound rapist? Smack him with your book?????

You are engaging in intellectual dilettantism, while we are concerned with people being able to exercise their constitutional rights to protect themselves and their families. Your rhetoric fails in the face of the founders of this country who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to give us this right.

Springmom

 

[txgolfer45]

Earl,

Enforce the existing gun laws. Keep criminals locked up when they commit a crime using a weapon (any kind not just a gun). No parole for felons using a weapon while committing the crime.

Provide instruction in firearm safety to our youth so that they won't feel afraid of a gun and will learn how to safely handle it.

Get rid of zero tolerance in our schools. Zero tolerance eliminates our educators ability to use good judgement based upon the situation.

Much of the gun violence you want to reduce is related to drug and gang activity. Any suggestions on how to reduce drug and gang activity? Seems that addressing the societal issues would be more effective than trying to control an inanimate object.

None of my guns have committed a crime. I keep them locked up so that they can't terrorize the neighborhood.

 

[dutchy]

Belgium for centuries had a relatively liberal gun law.
That changed a few years ago.
Everybody could register all the guns and get a license.
Now that's done, all of a sudden you need to pass an examn to be able to shoot.
Next step, for those who do not see it coming yet: a restricted number allowed, and thereafter impounding according to a preset scheme of laws and regulations.
Any government will allways strive to keep the arms monopoly to itself.

In short:
1. registration
2. Impouding.

Do read the book, just to be prepared for the arguments.

 

[Regolith]

I spent two weeks in Italy in March. My book was not out, so I did not have the benefit of your comments. Everyone I talked to said they would not want to be in New York, Philadelphia or even Minneapolis because of guns. I remember walking in a number of large cities late at night with no fear of being shot or robbed.

My contact with people from Europe, via both Internet and face to face, has shown me that many of them have formed an opinion on American gun crime based almost entirely upon media hype, and does not reflect accurately on the actual situation.

It should also be noted that Great Britain is experiencing a surge in violent crimes, despite the fact that they have strictly regulated firearm ownership as well as the carrying and owning of knives.

Violent crime is not linked to the availability of weapons. It is linked to social issues such as poverty, joblessness, gangs, drugs, and cultural outlook. Deal with THESE issues, and violent crime will go down. Guns are simply a scapegoat, an easy target for those who can not or will not deal with the actual causes of violent crime.

 

[I LIKE IT!]

Why are you stuck on "gun deaths"?

Are non gun deaths less worthwhile?

1. Punish convicted criminals(gallows sounds fitting for murder, rape, etc.)

2. Educate people about firearms so that they recognize not only how to handle and operate safely but to understand there historical importance.(they're chose as always)

I think the media, socialist,communists, elitists, etc. have done more than enough to incite fear by spreading lies/ignorance to the people.

I don't think there is much more we can do, registration is ridiculous, and if you cannot see that too bad. I really don't think you care about the people so much as your own agenda and "gun crimes".

Look at the bigger picture.

 

[White Horseradish]

Everyone I talked to said they would not want to be in New York, Philadelphia or even Minneapolis because of guns.

What guns in New York? New York City has just about the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Even owning a gun for target shooting is a huge expense and extremely complicated. The only people with carry permits are personal friends of the mayor.

They have registration, strict control and all that other fun stuff you suggest. How can anyone be afraid of guns in New York?

The question, and it is a sincere one, how can we as a soicety lower the number of gun deaths in our country? I indiacted that the object was to lower the death rate by five percent each year for five years. What are your suggestions? I'm sure law-makers, police officers and the the general public are interested in your solutions?

It is interesting how you keep demanding answers, yet provide none yourself. Why are you not answering questions, Earl?

Against my better judgment, I will answer.

The majority of violent crime involving guns happens in the cities. Gun ownership is much higher in rural areas, yet crime in general and crime with guns in particular is lower. I believe this has to do with population density.

The answer to your question is to replace cities with smaller communities.

 

[Stickjockey]

Don't try that in court!

For a brief period, the Supreme Court held in 1968 (Haynes v. U.S) that felons were exempt from federal and state laws regarding registration because it violated their Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. In other words, only people who were not criminals could be prosecuted for failing to register a firearm or found to be in possession of an unregistered firearm. However, in 1971, (U.S. v. Freed) the Court held that due to changes in the National Firearms Act of 1968 the law no longer violated the 5th Amendment rights of felons.

Thanks for that, Ieyasu. Another brick in the foundation of my RKBA education.

You did not tell me how we are going to lower the firearm death rate in our great country.

1) Institute National Reciprocity for state Concealed Carry permits.

2) Institute firearms safety programs in our school systems. NRA "Eddie Eagle" type stuff for K-6, and firearms safety classes for 7+. Could be augmented by reinstatement of HS rifle league competition.

 

[Earl McDowell]

Hi again,
I'm waiting for the solutions. I agree with enforcing all gun laws and training for these who are purchasing guns.
I'm waiting we want to reduce gun death by 5 percent?
Do you think that your thinking on the subject is better than law enforcement? physicians? constitutional scholars? historians?
Come on boys and girls let's have some solutions.

 

[Librarian]

You obviously know we have significantly more death from firearms than any other industrialized nation.

As I pointed out with my data from the Centers for Disease Control WISQARS site, we also have much more NON-FIREARM violent death than many other countries.

Since this is so, Dr. McDowell, of what value is the focus on guns? Does this fact not lead one to suspect a deeper problem?

You further say

Over 260 have been murdered in Philadelphia this year, Would you like to know the histtory of these guns used to commit these murders? I read that 90 percent of guns were legally purchased.

No. The history of the guns themselves is not interesting. The circumstances of the murders are interesting, and possibly something which can be addressed.

 

[M1 Shooter]

The answer to your question is to replace cities with smaller communities

I like that!!
Let's ban cities!!
If you simply must have a city with a capacity of more than, oh, say 10,000 people, then you must register it and get a license for it, and it will be strictly controlled.
After all, nobody NEEDS to live in a HIGH CAPACITY city, do they?

Sorry, but that statement just struck me as pretty funny. Thanks I needed a laugh.