2 Points Tex!

Hansel, You're trying to have an argument with the wrong guy. Go back and read my posts. Let's see your studies on politeness during the early 20th century.

I took my first shot at 6. I can't remember how old my kids were, but it was before 12. They were 6 & 7 when they started skiing, I can remember that! Parents should teach their kids basic gun safety by about 5 or 6, even if they never plan to own any guns.

Riley wrote: Hansel, You're trying to have an argument with the wrong guy. Go back and read my posts. Let's see your studies on politeness during the early 20th century.

Hi Bruce,

I'm not really trying to have an argument with you, but I am trying to get you to clarify what you really mean. When you originally said that I "misunderstood" you I went back to see where I had gone wrong. I found that we agree that you should be able to carry a gun if you wanted to (provided you are not a felon, etc...), but that you continue to promote the view that guns create a "polite" society. In this post that I am quoting you end with "politeness in the early 20th century" which I assume is again an attempt to say that more guns leads to a polite (by that I think you mean "safe") society.

From a quick look it seems that there is not a lot published on crime that far back, and I would guess that is so because good data are hard to find from that time period. From what I did see it appears that crime has actually decreased since the 19th century or at the least remained relatively stable.

Even if I could find studies from that time period, I'm not sure why they would matter. We don't live in the late 19th or early 20th Century. "Democrats" and "Republicans" from that time bear little resemblance to their counterparts today (sorry Greg). Indeed the world was a very different place. I don't see how even if it were a more "polite" time (which I very sincerely doubt) why that should change my or your view on gun regulations in the 21st Century.

Own and carry a gun if you would like to. The 2nd Amendment will back you up. But neither it nor social science back up claims that more guns reduces crime rates (that is, create "polite society"). In fact there is much evidence to the contrary. Indeed the 2nd amendment as written is mostly in the context of allowing a "well regulated militia" to ensure "the security of a Free State" though later Supreme Court rulings upheld the use of firearms for a variety of lawful uses including self defense. Maybe more gun deaths is the price we pay for our 2nd Amendment rights, and it seems many of us would think that the price is worth it. That is fine, but don't dress up our 2nd Amendment right as something that it is not.

Hansel....I will have to find the time to read it. Thanks for posting the full study. What are your thoughts on stricter gun laws? I am pretty sure where you may come down on the issue.

My thoughts are that even if guns were totally banned today, criminals would have no problems getting them, and they would still continue to break the law with them.

Gun owners need to be responsible in their ownership of them, and I know most are. It breaks my heart when I hear about kids getting ahold of a loaded gun in the house, and killing themselves or a sibling.

When I was a kid, I came within a split second of having a very bad accident with a 12 gauge shotgun. Let's just say that my 42 year old brother is still here to tell the tale, but, our window and curtains in the dining room didn't fare so well. If ever I had an angel on my shoulder, it was that day.     

Hi Dave,

I'm actually generally in favor of guns. I have some, and plan to own more. I use them for hunting and sport shooting. I have friends and family that legally use concealed carry. One of the first things I bought with my own money as a kid was my beloved BB gun. Still have it!

That said, I'm sure if we had fewer of them there would be less gun violence. People kill people, not guns. But sometimes guns make it easier for them. Our Constitution says we can have guns. Until our society decides to scrap that or alter it significantly, then targeted or random gun violence will continue to occur more frequently than perhaps it should. I suppose every freedom comes at a price.

Bruce, it may seem like I am centered in "liberalism" and perhaps I am. I agree that there is WAY to much incivility and lack of politeness, and I wish I knew what to do about it. I am sure that you and I have a lot more in common in the way we carry ourselves, though we may at times differ politically, than lots of other folks that vote the same as either one of us. Thanks for going back and forth with me, I really do enjoy it and I always learn something. I hope you feel the same way. I really hope to make it to a reunion one of these days to meet some of you all!

I agree on the 2nd Amendment, which is why I don't think it should be used to fight crime in general. A gun in the hands of a well prepared defender might be good for stopping an individual crime. I believe the gun owners on this forum probably fit into this category. I don't believe, based on published evidence and data, that those same guns reduce crime rates overall. Own, train, and use a gun to protect yourself if necessary but don't be under any illusions that you are also protecting your broader community by simply carrying.

why do the reunions seem to have faded away ?

My guess is they became too much work, and while initially they helped the site gel, it's gelled.

Minis seem to be the way. The Sebago Long Lake region would be an excellent place to have one, although there has always been limited interest in that area as it is so far away for most people. Seems like with the new Nautique dealer in Naples, there might be opportunity, but there would have to be interest enough to get people to travel to Maine.

Maine is one of the few US states that I have yet to visit but when I do I will look you up and buy you a beer or two in our own mini-reunion.

I've been watching this site for years, but I was always too busy to make it to on of the big reunions. Bummer...

Green Lake is close to Madison for sure, but every summer since 2007 I've been living or traveling outside the state. Hopefully this year is the year! Otherwise someday I'll just have to crash a Chicago beers get together as a consolation prize.

I am finally finding some time to do my homework.

Here are a few fun facts.

Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]


* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"

• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]




Hansel, what do you have against John Lott. His story is interesting. He was/is an academic who became a supporter of the second amendment only after he did a nation wide survey of gun laws and crime rates. His supporters and detractors seem to fall along political lines based thier position on gun control. Here is an overview.

Concealed weapons and crime rate

In an 1997 article written with David B. Mustard[17] and Lott's subsequent books More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns, Lott argued that allowing adults to carry concealed weapons significantly reduces crime in America. He supported this position with a statistical tabulation of time series data from census and other social and economic surveys of individual United States counties in different years, which he used in a multivariate model of crime rates. His published results purported to show a reduction in violent crime associated with states' adoption of laws that allow the adult population to carry concealed weapons.

The work was immediately controversial, drawing both support and opposition. Several academics praised Lott's methodology, including Florida State University economist Bruce Benson,[18] Cardozo School of Law professor John O. McGinnis,[19] and University of Mississippi professor William F. Shughart.[20] The book was favorably reviewed by reviews from academics Gary Kleck, Milton Friedman, and Thomas Sowell.[21][citation needed]

Other reviews claimed that there were problems with Lott's model. In the New England Journal of Medicine, David Hemenway argued that Lott failed to account for several key variables, including drug consumption, and that therefore the model was flawed;[22] however, Lott's book did account for other variables such as cocaine prices.[23] Others agreed, and some researchers, including Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue, claimed that the model contained significant coding errors and systemic bias.[24] Gary Kleck considered it unlikely that such a large decrease in violent crime could be explained by a relatively modest increase in concealed carry,[25] and others claimed that removing portions of the data set caused the results to still show statistically significant drops only in aggravated assaults and robbery when all counties with fewer than 100,000 people and Florida's counties were both simultaneously dropped from the sample.[26]

In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences conducted a review of current research and data on firearms and violent crime, including Lott's work, and found "no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime."[27] James Q. Wilson dissented from that opinion, and while accepting the committee's findings on violent crime in general,[28] he noted that the committee's own findings in several tests showed "that shall-issue laws drive down the murder rate".[29]

Referring to the research done on the topic, The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that while most researchers support Lott's findings that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime, some researchers doubt that concealed carry laws have any impact on violent crime, saying however that "Mr. Lott's research has convinced his peers of at least one point: No scholars now claim that legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in crime."[30] As Lott critics Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III pointed out: "We conclude that Lott and Mustard have made an important scholarly contribution in establishing that these laws have not led to the massive bloodbath of death and injury that some of their opponents feared.





Here is another well known comparison/ experiment.

On May 1, 1982, a new ordinance was passed by the city council of Kennesaw. This law ( Sec. 34-1 Heads of households to maintain firearms) made it mandatory for each household to own and maintain a gun, as well as ammunition. Not only was the ordinance passed by city council, it was a unanimous decision. The ordinance states the gun law is needed "In order to provide for the emergency management of the City, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the City limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore." Of course, exclusions were made to convicted felons, people with religious objections, and people with disabilities.

Members of the city council introduced and voted for the ordinance to make a statement when a city in Illinois, Morton Grove, passed an ordinance banning hand guns from anyone other than peace officers. Morton Grove was the first community to ever ban the sale and possession of handguns.

Both city ordinances drew worldwide media attention, with Kennesaw's attention being negative. Nicknamed "Gun Town USA" from a column titled the same and written by Art Buchwald, expectations were for the town to covert back to the Old West style of handling disagreements with ruthless shoot outs. This expectation never happened. In fact, more than 25 years after the ban, not a single resident of Kennesaw has been involved in a fatal shooting - as a victim, attacker or defender. There has been one firearm related murder but not from a resident of Kennesaw. Since the ordinance, no child has ever been injured with a firearm in Kennesaw. Crime dropped after the ordinance and the city has maintained an exceptionally low crime rate ever since, even with the population swelling from 5,000 in 1982 to approximately 30,000 today. The truth is crime has plummeted and population has soared.

In comparison, the population of Morton Grove, Illinois has dropped slightly and the crime rate has increased, especially right after the ban.

Putting a ban on owning a firearm may keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens but will it put them at a disadvantage when it comes to protecting their families and possessions? Criminals who do not abide by laws anyway, will still possess handguns. If you were a criminal planning on breaking into a home to steal or cause somebody harm, would you choose a home in a city where every homeowner is required to carry a gun and ammunition or a home in a city where homeowners are banned from carrying guns?

Just curious is CT, a right to carry state??
Great post Dave...

I usually stay out of the politics threads because in my opinion you can't change other people's opinions. So it isn't worth trying. But I am an advocate of the 2nd Amendment and am a gun owner, both for hunting and self defense purposes. I have a concealed weapons permit but don't carry all the time, I probably should more so but maybe complacency has gotten the best of me. But lately with all the senseless violence going on I should remind myself to carry everywhere I can. A month ago I missed this one by about 10 minutes. My friend and I were at the very ATM this happened at and then went into watch a Jai-Alai match next door:
ATM Robbery backfires
Score one for the good guys.
Score another here:
Waffle House Robber killed

Now my thoughts are, is it better to be a victim, or to watch other innocent people become victims, or is it better to be an upstanding citizen legally carrying to protect ones self, family, and others?
Our country is broken, and every time there is a tragedy, people want to blame the guns and gun control. I don't understand this. Guns have been around and a part of this country since its inception. It would have been just as easy for that douchebag that just killed all those poor kids to hijack a school bus and run it into a river. Taking the guns away is not going to fix the problem of people killing each other. Does it make it any easier? Probably not. Criminals will always find a way to do the evil things that they do. He could have done a number of things to accomplish his ultimate goal.

Hansel wrote:    Until then I, and I hope others on this board, will not draw the lesson that guns reduce crime.

I just cited 2 instances where they did. Concrete, real evidence. Would you like me to find more? It's not hard to search them out.

Here's some more fodder just in case:
Gun carrying citizen stops man with knife before stabbing more victims
Gun-carrying woman stops robbery suspect
Concealed carry stops bank robbery in Missouri

Hansel wrote: Therefore, if you want to lower crime fix the problems in society (primarily socioeconomic).

I couldn't agree with you more. But the masses don't want to hear this. It's much easier to make excuses, blame guns, prescribe more meds, and shovel the *************** under the carpet.

Hansel You are correct that I cut and pasted information. You seem to be tired of my opinion and wanted me to provide information to back it up.


I like how you discredit a convenient compilation because you disagree with the compiler, but in effect you are saying we cannot trust the US center for disease control or the Journal of quantitative criminology.


I choose the Wikipedia page because it seemed fairly neutral on John which I thought was big of me. As I am not an academic, and I am not providing research, I see this topic as a debate, where arguments are made pro or con and others can refute them as they see fit. By the way I edited out well over three quarters of the page and I did it selectively so as not to bore to many with excessive information and to support my argument.

Here is a direct copy of the line you are questioning.

"On the other hand, we find that the statistical evidence that these laws have reduced crime is limited, sporadic, and extraordinarily fragile."[24]

and here is yours.

Hansel wrote: "On the other hand, we find that the statistical evidence that these laws have reduced crime is limited, sporadic, and extraordinarily fragile."

It would appear that you have manipulated the original content by making it bold to add emphasis that the author did not intend, and also eliminated the footnote that allows it to be further investigated in its original source. Such horrors from and academic.

As for John, Again he became a proponent of the 2nd amendment after being convinced by his own research, not the other way around. At least he did some research, unlike like an Al Gore who went from politician to global warming (excuse me climate change now that the earth stopped warming) expert, and carbon credit salesman.

Nearly all researchers are paid by someone. I am sure you do not work for free. Follow the money and you likely will find and agenda behind most research. If that is the criteria for discrediting someones work there is virtually no untainted research.

As for kennisaw, guns are certainly only one factor, and yet the results were exactly what kennisaw envisioned. Coincidence? maybe. Fun? for sure.


Back to my homework!