Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260178503028361.html#mod=djemEditorialPage" target="_blank">http://online.wsj.com/article/...rialPage</a> >>Amid so much other news, a Senate vote last week to allow loaded guns in national parks slipped under the media radar. The vote shows how the political cause of gun control is as dead as a mounted moose. By 67-29, the Senate passed Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn's amendment to let law-abiding visitors carry legal firearms into national parks. This overturns a 1983 federal rule requiring that firearms be kept unloaded and in an inaccessible place such as a trunk of a car. The provision (now part of credit-card legislation) protects Second Amendment rights, and it preserves the right of states to pass firearm laws that apply consistently, even on federal lands. Well, at least some folks are trying to be Moderate.....
Originally Posted By SuperDry Perhaps the biggest reason for this is that there is a formidable block of single-issue voters on the right that will not vote for any candidate that supports gun control, but there's only a tiny number of voters on the left that do so in the opposite direction. So, there's a large penalty for going up against the gun lobby, but very little penalty among moderates of either party for siding with them. So, the expedient thing for most politicians to do is to at least moderately support gun owner rights.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Liberals didn't lose. They looked at the statistics. The number one cause of gun deaths is suicide. More guns mean fewer Republicans.
Originally Posted By gadzuux So who thinks it's a good idea to have more people walking around carrying loaded weapons? Why is this a 'political victory'? Are these the same people who oppose an assault weapons ban? Whatever for? What I see in post #1 is a lot of macho chest-thumping about getting one over on those damned liberals without any deeper understanding of the likely outcome - namely, yahoos in parks drinking and shooting guns. Congratulations on winning that "debate".
Originally Posted By DAR The majority of those that are walking around carrying guns are not your law abiding, went through the proper channels to obtain the gun.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So who thinks it's a good idea to have more people walking around carrying loaded weapons?> I think it's a good idea to allow law abiding citizens the right to bear arms. In general, "More Guns, Less Crime".
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 "I think it's a good idea to allow law abiding citizens the right to bear arms. In general, "More Guns, Less Crime"." But in the National parks? I mean, there's no hunting in there...so why allow it? It just creates a problem if somebody "accidentally" shoots some game inside park borders...oh well, score one for the hunters! Elmer Fudd would be proud.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I think it's a good idea to allow law abiding citizens the right to bear arms. In general, "More Guns, Less Crime". > Got any stats to back up that generality? Here's a chart that shows that a lot of southern and western states (which tend to have more guns) near the top of the crime stats, and a lot of northeastern states (typically, fewer guns) near the bottom. There are exceptions, but I'm wondering where you're getting what seems like a rather blithe assertion. <a href="http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/29706263" target="_blank">http://www.swivel.com/graphs/s...29706263</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Having said this, I'll reiterate that I generally favor letting adults who are non-felons and mentally competent own guns, though I think there should be mandatory usage and safety courses when owning for the first time (rather like a driver's test). I also favor common-sense things like a limited number of gun purchases per year, and a ban on assault weapons and cop killer bullets (favored by every police dept. I know of). I think that people who can demonstrate they know how to handle one should be able to own one. But I see no proof for "more guns, less crime."
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>In general, "More Guns, Less Crime"<< I don't know about that. We've got an awful lot of guns here in the US and an awful lot of crime. I think the theory you're suggesting is that if criminals know victims might shoot back, they're likely to choose less well-defended targets. There's something to that, for sure. But on the other hand, people unable to get a gun legally might want to steal a gun – which then makes law-abiding gun owners a potential target, too.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But in the National parks?> Yes. <I mean, there's no hunting in there...so why allow it?> For the same reason we allow it in cities, where there's no hunting either.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Where I live, there's a direct correlation to "More Guns, More Crime". And armed vigilantes we don't need.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Got any stats to back up that generality?> Yes, a whole book of them. That's why I put quotes around and capitalized my generality.
Originally Posted By SuperDry There's an important distinction that's being missed here. There probably is a correlation between the number of guns and the amount of gun crime, if you were to make a comparison between otherwise like kind and quality communities. But, "more guns" isn't what we're talking about here. Allowing guns to be carried in national parks is a "concealed carry" issue not an ownership issue. And I don't think there's any correlation between increased concealed carry availability and increased gun crime.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Oh, the Lott book. Not everyone accepts his conclusions, of course. <a href="http://www.time.com/time/community/transcripts/chattr070198.html" target="_blank">http://www.time.com/time/commu...198.html</a> " John Lott: I find that just as criminals can be deterred by higher arrest or conviction rates, they can also be deterred by the fact that would-be victims might be able to defend themselves with a gun. Criminals are less likely to commit a crime as the probability that a victim is going to be able to defend themselves increases. Timehost: Mr. Weil, your response? Douglas Weil First, there's no evidence that we have any significant increase in gun carrying, which means criminals are not likely to face an increased risk of an armed victim. Most important, when Lott's research was published, a number of academic researchers looked at this methods and his conclusions and determined his research was fundamentally flawed. The criticism was so convincing that even Gary Kleck, a criminologist whose work is often cited by John Lott and the NRA, has dismissed Lott's conclusions. Kleck wrote in his book, Targeting Guns, that "more likely the declines in crime coinciding with relaxation of carry laws were largely attributable to other factors not controlled for in the Lott Mustard analysis." John Lott: First, there is a very close relationship between the number of permits issued in a state and the decline in violent crime rates. Those states that issue the most permits have had the largest drops in violent crime, and over time as more permits are issued there is a continued drop in violent crime. As to Mr. Weil's second point, I have provided my data to researchers at 36 different universities. I believe that the vast majority would support the findings that I have provided, but if Mr. Weil has specific criticisms, I would be happy to address them. This is by far the largest study that has been done on crime, and I have tried to control for as many variables as it has been possible to control for." (snip) "Douglas Weil: John said he found that states with the highest growth in gun ownership have the biggest drop in violent crime. John reached the conclusion using two voter exit polls in applying a made-up formula which concluded that the percentage of adults who own a firearm increased by 50% from 1988 to 1996. But we know that's wrong. According the General Social Survey, gun ownership has remained essentially unchanged since at least 1990. But the most important information is that the Voters News Service, which conducted the 1996 poll has said the poll cannot be used in the manner Dr. Lott used it. It cannot be used to say anything about gun ownership in any state, and it cannot be used to compare gun ownership to the earlier 1988 voter poll. I'd also like to respond to an earlier point. Earlier John said that he believes that other researchers would support his conclusions. Dan Black Dan Nagin are two researchers are two researchers he gave his data to. They concluded, after re-analyzing the data, that "it would be a mistake to formulate policy based on the findings of Dr. Lott's study." In the Journal of Legal Studies, January 1988, they used a well-known statistical test which proved that John failed to control for other factors that affect crime rates. Again, I repeat, the analysis was so convincing that Gary Kleck has dismissed Lott's findings." (more back and forth at the link) At any rate, that book is 10 years old. Any comments on the more recent state by state crime stats I posted?
Originally Posted By donnyaz Anyone who has been cornered by a wild pig or bear in the woods will tell you a gun is nice to have and most of the time the noise scares them away.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***In general, "More Guns, Less Crime"."*** What a load of crap this is. America is one of the most crime ridden of the major countries. Oh, and also happens to be lousy with guns. And I live in a country with virtually no guns, and statistically no violent crime whatsoever. If you want to claim 2nd amendment rights, that's fine, but don't try to make up this garbage "crime prevention" excuse to bolster your position. It doesn't hold water. Here's one from me. In general; "more guns, more gun related accidents".
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder All rappers have guns, and look what it gets them- dead in Beverly Hills. This dead one is someone named "Dolla". <a href="http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-beverly-center-shooting,0,3365823.story" target="_blank">http://www.ktla.com/news/landi...23.story</a>
