Possible Domestic Terrorist Shoots Security Guard In Washing DC

Quote from skiman : No need to build a straw man. AFAIK, the state of the debate is that there isn't a good correlation in either direction, and I have no problem accepting that. Note that it is you who likes to state the correlation between guns and crime as if it significant. I never mentioned it one way or the other. I have only said that we can and should do a better job of keeping guns out of criminal channels.

You misrepresent me, (as I believe you misrepresent Lott).

All of my posting of the incredible increases in gun sales and ownership, isn't to try and prove a correlation between that and the crime decreases that happened at the same time, it's to lay waste to the argument that increases in the gun supply would increase crime.

I understand that you wish to reduce the amount of guns in criminal's hands. I would too. Our differences are in how to accomplish that.

Let's try an analogy.

Anti Racers: "Mr. Ski, the incidence of racing through your neighborhood is unacceptable".

Ski: "But aren't incidents of racing dramatically down"?

Anti Racers: "Well, yes, but any is too many". "So we want you to have a radio based computer governor system put on your car, that will limit it's ability to drive over the speed limit". "The cost is only $1000.00, and they'll need your car for 5 days, which we think is reasonable".

Ski: "How many speeders have been stopped in my neighborhood"?

Anti Racers: "Well, three in the last four years, but our Anti Racing advocacy group study says there's lots more than that". "This governing system will allow us to catch more of them, when they get stopped and they don't have the system on their car".

Ski: "Have they tried beefing up patrols to look for the speeders"?

Anti Racers: "No, but this new system will make them easier to find if and when they might want to look for them".

Ski: "What happened to the three racers that were stopped"?

Anti Racers: "They were given a harsh warning, and told not to race in your neighborhood". "We didn't think punishing them was necessary".

Quote from skiman : Note that the gun boom (intended) that you are referencing occurs post-Brady and counts only sales within the primary market. That is to say, it's evident that the requirement for background checks hasn't crippled gun sales or prevented eligible buyers from buying guns. To the contrary, as you note, the market has flourished.

And you don't think the secondary market also flourished?

Quote from skiman : I don't think it's asking very much to require that private sellers also not sell to ineligible buyers, and yes, even requiring that they check eligibility. It's not going to cripple the secondary market any more than it did the primary market, but it can strangle the flow of guns into criminal channels.

And as I said, if there were an easy system put into place to check eligibility, I'd support that. But that's not what has been proposed by the anti gun crowd.

I'm not sure of your motivations. I know what the motivations of others here are. If it came down to reasonable and common sense changes, there could be lots more agreement. But unfortunately, it usually comes down to the types of ridiculous laws California has enacted, that have little effect on criminals, and instead only infringe on the law abiding, like California's asinine "safe gun" law.

But I still wait for someone from your side, to express outrage at the lack of prosecutions for existing gun law violations.....

Quote from Elmer : Let's try an analogy. Anti Racers: "Mr. Ski, the incidence of racing through your neighborhood is unacceptable". Ski: "But aren't incidents of racing dramatically down"? Anti Racers: "Well, yes, but any is too many". "So we want you to have a radio based computer governor system put on your car, that will limit it's ability to drive over the speed limit". "The cost is only $1000.00, and they'll need your car for 5 days, which we think is reasonable". Ski: "How many speeders have been stopped in my neighborhood"? Anti Racers: "Well, three in the last four years, but our Anti Racing advocacy group study says there's lots more than that". "This governing system will allow us to catch more of them, when they get stopped and they don't have the system on their car". Ski: "Have they tried beefing up patrols to look for the speeders"? Anti Racers: "No, but this new system will make them easier to find if and when they might want to look for them". Ski: "What happened to the three racers that were stopped"? Anti Racers: "They were given a harsh warning, and told not to race in your neighborhood". "We didn't think punishing them was necessary".

You forgot one part though:

Ski: Is the $1000 government subsidized?

Anti Racer: Of course not, why should I have to pay, I don't race?

Ski: Well I don't either and you are requesting this. How about this, give me the transmitter and I will install it myself?

Anti Racer: Unacceptable. I don't trust you.

Quote from Deusxmachina : Not to mention the issue of reducing (civilian) crime isn't what the 2nd Amendment is about anyway.

I agree. Clearly the 2nd is all about a well regulated militia.


(I love these moments of...)

Quote from skiman : BTW, weren't you curious to read the inevitable rebuttal? [econjwatch.org] Quote : Moody and Marvell criticize that calculation for not extrapolating our trend estimates further, but since we had limited post-passage data for roughly half of our states, we were uncomfortable projecting crime trends far beyond our data. Our caution has now been validated, as the sharp crime declines of the 1990s disappeared after 2000.

You mean their "rebuttal" that is patently false?

Crime, including homicide, has continued to drop, sharply, since 2000.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/...es/table-3

Keep hitting me softballs Ski......

Quote from Elmer : You misrepresent me, (as I believe you misrepresent Lott). All of my posting of the incredible increases in gun sales and ownership, isn't to try and prove a correlation between that and the crime decreases that happened at the same time, it's to lay waste to the argument that increases in the gun supply would increase crime. I understand that you wish to reduce the amount of guns in criminal's hands. I would too. Our differences are in how to accomplish that. Let's try an analogy. Anti Racers: "Mr. Ski, the incidence of racing through your neighborhood is unacceptable". Ski: "But aren't incidents of racing dramatically down"? Anti Racers: "Well, yes, but any is too many". "So we want you to have a radio based computer governor system put on your car, that will limit it's ability to drive over the speed limit". "The cost is only $1000.00, and they'll need your car for 5 days, which we think is reasonable". Ski: "How many speeders have been stopped in my neighborhood"? Anti Racers: "Well, three in the last four years, but our Anti Racing advocacy group study says there's lots more than that". "This governing system will allow us to catch more of them, when they get stopped and they don't have the system on their car". Ski: "Have they tried beefing up patrols to look for the speeders"? Anti Racers: "No, but this new system will make them easier to find if and when they might want to look for them". Ski: "What happened to the three racers that were stopped"? Anti Racers: "They were given a harsh warning, and told not to race in your neighborhood". "We didn't think punishing them was necessary".

I'm not going to get into this point by point, but this isn't a very good analogy. It misses on many points, including the certainty of guns/cars in crime and the fact that active enforcement is not only less effective, but less desirable and more costly.

Quote from Elmer : And you don't think the secondary market also flourished?

Oh, there may have been increased trading among legal owners, but I don't expect that this would be reflected in crime statistics.

The reason I would guess this is that supply for the criminal market hasn't been a limiting factor. Illegal guns are cheap and easy to get. More total guns in the secondary marketplace doesn't translate to more guns for criminals without more demand. And, on the demand side, the buying motivation isn't the same. Remember that a lot of those sales are the result of the NRA and gun lobby (brilliantly) casting Obama as a gun-grabbing boogeyman. Criminals weren't stockpiling guns because they were worried about gun laws- unless they were thinking far, far ahead.

At any rate, the reason I pointed out that the sales were in the primary market was not to suggest that the secondary market wasn't also busy, but to highlight the fact that gun sales were healthy- booming even -even with the requirement for background checks. A standard that is resisted in the secondary market, we are told, because it is too onerous.

Quote from Elmer : And as I said, if there were an easy system put into place to check eligibility, I'd support that. But that's not what has been proposed by the anti gun crowd. I'm not sure of your motivations. I know what the motivations of others here are. If it came down to reasonable and common sense changes, there could be lots more agreement. But unfortunately, it usually comes down to the types of ridiculous laws California has enacted, that have little effect on criminals, and instead only infringe on the law abiding, like California's asinine "safe gun" law.

What I've suggested is exactly as burdensome as the automobile marketplace. Guns are registered to owners, and sellers can be held accountable for selling to an owner legally prohibited of assuming responsibility for a gun.

It can't be voluntary participation. The exact same people who arm criminals now will simply continue to do so. We must have a way of holding them accountable.

Quote from Elmer : But I still wait for someone from your side, to express outrage at the lack of prosecutions for existing gun law violations.....

If you're talking about prosecutions of people who didn't pass that Brady check, I find it hard to be too outraged. They were either fantastically dumb, or didn't know that they wouldn't pass. The people who know that they can't pass go elsewhere. And these are sales that are stopped, so that's worthwhile on its own. At the same time, prosecuting serious criminals- those with "nothing more to lose" for something as "petty" as lying on the application does not add appreciably to the risk they are incurring through crime. And if prosecutions of the Brady check violation are not significant deterrents to other crime, we'd be spinning our wheels to invest heavily.

If we had infinite resources, sure. But with limited resources, I'd much prefer that the government devote those resources toward more significant cases- thousands of which are prosecuted each year.

But as I've been saying, by the time we get to serious criminals, another sliver of deterrent isn't a big influencer. We need a way to influence the behavior of people who do have something to lose. We need a way to reliably hold accountable the people who are actually putting guns into illegal channels. These are people "upstanding" enough to participate in the primary market. They have something to lose. Apply pressure there. Kink the hose rather than trying to catch the spray in a bucket.

Quote from Elmer : You mean their "rebuttal" that is patently false? Crime, including homicide, has continued to drop, sharply, since 2000. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/...es/table-3 Keep hitting me softballs Ski......

A swing and a miss.

Yes, it has continued to decline, but not at anywhere near the rate of decline from the mid-late nineties. Which is precisely what they claimed.



This is in 2 year increments. Look for yourself.

Quote from skiman : I'm not going to get into this point by point, but this isn't a very good analogy. It misses on many points, including the certainty of guns/cars in crime and the fact that active enforcement is not only less effective, but less desirable and more costly.

I would strongly disagree with that...but whatever.....

Quote from skiman : It can't be voluntary participation. The exact same people who arm criminals now will simply continue to do so. We must have a way of holding them accountable. .

Then how about this.

As a gun owner, I would be responsible for keeping a record of any personal gun I sell, for some reasonable length of time. I would also be responsible for checking the background of the buyer through the NICS system that dealers currently use. If my gun were found with a prohibited person, and I couldn't produce the record of sale, along with the code from NICS verifying I did the check, I'd be subject to prosecution. Their would be no cost to me for the NICS checks, just as there isn't with dealers.

Does that work?

Quote from skiman : A swing and a miss. Yes, it has continued to decline, but not at anywhere near the rate of decline from the mid-late nineties. Which is precisely what they claimed.

Did you even look at the FBI link I posted? It's a little more clear than the chart you posted.

Homicide declined 10%, just in the 2008/2009 time frame. [fbi.gov]

You don't call that a sharp decline?????

But even if the declines weren't as "sharp", the crime rates have continued to decline, year after year.

No one on the pro gun side said any benefits would continue at the same pace.

You need to understand, the opponents of CCW laws, predicted "bloodbaths in the streets", and a cataclysmic rise in the homicide rates. Clearly, they were full of shit.

Quote from Elmer : I would strongly disagree with that...but whatever.....

Why? Assuming that you participate in the secondary market, do you really want the necessary swarm of ATF agents poking around in your deals trying to accomplish the extraordinary task of catching you in the act- or not.

For my tastes, I'd much prefer to handle my business without massive government surveillance operations. Just make the individuals responsible. If they breech that obligation, worry about it then. That way the government only has to investigate the people who are causing the problems.

Quote from Elmer : Then how about this. As a gun owner, I would be responsible for keeping a record of any personal gun I sell, for some reasonable length of time. I would also be responsible for checking the background of the buyer through the NICS system that dealers currently use. If my gun were found with a prohibited person, and I couldn't produce the record of sale, along with the code from NICS verifying I did the check, I'd be subject to prosecution. Their would be no cost to me for the NICS checks, just as there isn't with dealers. Does that work?

That sounds pretty good. As far as the transactions are concerned, it's very close to what I've been proposing. I think that it would be a huge step toward accountability, in that sellers would at least be investigable. That being said, I hesitate at DIY.

My reservation with a DIY system, as in the other thread, is that the person named on that bill of sale as the recipient would assume the liability for keeping the weapon legal. To my mind, taking on that liability should be an active rather than a passive process. We don't want unscrupulous sellers tagging some random Joe with a weapon Joe has never seen. That is why I argued for verification by a trusted third party- private or public. Some officiate to look at Joe's ID and confirm that Joe is actively taking on this responsibility.

But that's a relative quibble. If such cases become problematic, I'll work on that for Accountability 1.1.

Quote from Elmer : Did you even look at the FBI link I posted? It's a little more clear than the chart you posted. Homicide declined 10%, just in the 2008/2009 time frame. [fbi.gov] You don't call that a sharp decline?????

I would call it a good decline, but I certainly wouldn't call it a sharp decline relative to the declines in the decade prior. And it's this relative difference that is important to the models- to one model having better predictive value than another. The first hybrid model turned out to be more accurate.

Quote from Elmer : But even if the declines weren't as "sharp", the crime rates have continued to decline, year after year.

But this is exactly the criticism that was exchanged between the two papers. One wanted a longer projection based on extant data. The other thought that a shorter projection was warranted since we were in the midst of an extraordinary drop in crime that probably wouldn't be sustained.

Quote from skiman : That sounds pretty good. As far as the transactions are concerned, it's very close to what I've been proposing. I think that it would be a huge step toward accountability, in that sellers would at least be investigable. That being said, I hesitate at DIY. My reservation with a DIY system, as in the other thread, is that the person named on that bill of sale as the recipient would assume the liability for keeping the weapon legal. To my mind, taking on that liability should be an active rather than a passive process. We don't want unscrupulous sellers tagging some random Joe with a weapon Joe has never seen. That is why I argued for verification by a trusted third party- private or public. Some officiate to look at Joe's ID and confirm that Joe is actively taking on this responsibility. But that's a relative quibble. If such cases become problematic, I'll work on that for Accountability 1.1.

I was curious as to your response to this since it was exactly what I proposed in the other thread, and it seems you remembered that.

Quote from securety10 : I was curious as to your response to this since it was exactly what I proposed in the other thread, and it seems you remembered that.

I remember. People come here for different reasons, but I prefer sincere discussions (when folks are willing) and do try to make an effort to digest and profit from those efforts. I appreciated that you took the same approach.

Quote from TRNT : I agree. Clearly the 2nd is all about a well regulated militia. (I love these moments of...)

sigh.
Who is the militia? Pretty much everybody.

Now tell me what the second part of the 2nd Amendment says.

Quote from Deusxmachina : sigh. Who is the militia? Pretty much everybody. Now tell me what the second part of the 2nd Amendment says.

I have to google it. The part that I easily recall is "well regulated militia." Our FF did not even settle for "regulated" militia. They wanted to make sure it was well regulated militia.