[Nakura]

Read more: http://dvc.org.uk/dunblane/clayton_1.pdf

Who is Clayton Cramer, and why should I care about what he says or what a site set up by some random guy on the Dunblane massacre say?  I am getting exceedingly tired of asking for reputable sources.  I can go find some random guy on the Internet that says guns are the spawn of Satan - that doesn't make it credible.

As for the US it's well-documented everywhere. Here's a pretty comprehensive and well-sourced study on gun control being used to suppress freed slaves: http://www.guncite.com/journals/cd-reg.html

While my head explodes at the fact you've pulled it from Guncite, the analysis is at least from reputable authors it seems, so that's a plus.  It makes for an interesting argument; but recognize that it is an argument and - like most history - it's an interpretation based on facts, not a fact unto itself.  Good reading, though, and seems to carry some academic validity at least in how its constructed.

Note that both sites provide sources for all of their data. Also, his article was primarily about the 1920 Firearms Act.

[MP-Ryan]

Just because I'm curious, what good explanation would pass in that circumstance?
Because I can't think of any good excuse why you have a loaded handgun in your pocket and you're Joe from Accounting

"I found it lying on the street, there were kids nearby, and I was taking it to the police detachment a block away from here because when I called the non-emergency police number I was on hold for 20 minutes."

Also, it's not a problem of intelligence, it's a problem of wording =)

[MP-Ryan]

Note that both sites provide sources for all of their data.

No; both articles provide references that they use to make their arguments.  Cramer is just like me - some guy with an interest who has a bunch of sources he is using to make an argument.  His writings are not facts in and of themselves.  Similarly, though the second pair of authors may be professors, their footnotes acknowledge theirs is an interpretation of a series of facts they are using to present an argument.

You are trying to make an argument based on an argument someone else made based on a series of historical points they looked at and referenced in order to show why they made that argument.  You are not taking raw data or a study of raw data drawing conclusions and making an argument from it.  See the difference?

If I say "the sky is green with purple polka dots," nobody would take me seriously.  If I say the same thing and then say "because that guy over there says so too, and he actually looked at it" someone might take me more seriously but still be pretty damn skeptical.  If I say the same thin and then say "and I know it is because I have a series of photos which I took and I have analyzed the wavelengths of the particular colours, and I have also checked my camera to make sure it was working correctly and I have other photos or other objects which show their correct colours which you can plainly see..." it's going to be much harder for someone to argue with me.  Right now, you are alternating between the first and second types of statements in your sourcing.

[Luis Dias]

Cramer is just like me

Where's your wikipedia page?

[Nakura]

Note that both sites provide sources for all of their data.

No; both articles provide references that they use to make their arguments.  Cramer is just like me - some guy with an interest who has a bunch of sources he is using to make an argument.  His writings are not facts in and of themselves.  Similarly, though the second pair of authors may be professors, their footnotes acknowledge theirs is an interpretation of a series of facts they are using to present an argument.

You are trying to make an argument based on an argument someone else made based on a series of historical points they looked at and referenced in order to show why they made that argument.  You are not taking raw data or a study of raw data drawing conclusions and making an argument from it.  See the difference?

If I say "the sky is green with purple polka dots," nobody would take me seriously.  If I say the same thing and then say "because that guy over there says so too, and he actually looked at it" someone might take me more seriously but still be pretty damn skeptical.  If I say the same thin and then say "and I know it is because I have a series of photos which I took and I have analyzed the wavelengths of the particular colours, and I have also checked my camera to make sure it was working correctly and I have other photos or other objects which show their correct colours which you can plainly see..." it's going to be much harder for someone to argue with me.  Right now, you are alternating between the first and second types of statements in your sourcing.

If not Cramer, then look at Guncite again:

The third undermining factor was the development of government mistrust of the people, as in the 1920 fears of Bolshevism. We may hear echoes of this today in the United States government's fears the militia movement and its allies. Certainly, however, the dangers posed by the modern militia movement are much smaller than the dangers posed by Soviet communism and its United States agents in the 1950s or by violent anarcho-syndicalism in the early twentieth century. Consequently, the related suppressions of civil liberties have been smaller.

Source: http://guncite.com/journals/okslip.html#fn252

Or even left-wingers themselves:

Backing up these mass meetings there had also been a slow but steady preparation by workers for the coming conflict with the government. Unlike today, it was still lawful for any person to hold arms in Britain, much like the current US constitution. This right was later removed by the British government through the 1903 Pistol Act and 1920 Firearms Act, the latter quickly passed during a period of working-class militancy and radicalisation. But in 1838, the purchase of firearms was readily available, and workers up and down the country had begun to accumulate arms as part of their preparation to ensure that the demands of the charter would be met. The extent and range of firearms accumulation is quite staggering: for example, with caltrops (spiked iron balls to throw under the feet of charging cavalry) being mass produced secretly at the Winlaton ironworks in Tyneside, or the caseloads of rifles purchased in Sheffield by Staffordshire Chartists. In the south west, William Potts was amongst others who was later found by the authorities with an arms cache and who had displayed in his shop window bullets with the label ‘pills for the Tories’ – he was a chemist!

Source: http://www.socialismtoday.org/129/chartism.html

It's pretty well documented that early gun control laws in the United Kingdom were aimed to stifle opposition from left-wingers and labour unions. I can somewhat understand what you're trying to say, but there are some things that are just facts. For instance, "Abraham Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address" is a fact. It's not open to interpretation, it simply happened and is well documented. Sure, nobody from back then is still alive, but it's a pretty safe bet that it still happened.

[Lorric]

Cramer is just like me

Where's your wikipedia page?

Mmm... maybe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Leef

[MP-Ryan]

It's like I'm talking to a wall about sources here.  (And no, no wiki page for me I have big career problems if I end up on Wikipedia)

Look, Nakura, I can appreciate that you're at least trying some sourcing now, but you're still missing the point.  Whenever you go to a source that has special interest in a topic area, you immediately call it's credibility into question - bias plays a huge role in any political argument and Lott and gun cite area huge red flags.  You want raw data presented with as little bias as possible, something you aren't going to get from either of those places, or many of the others you're using.  Peer-reviewed work can contain biases, yes, but they are usually interpretive versus methodological.

Now, all that aside, the historical crux of the point of where some firearms laws began to originally emerged has been basically satisfied, so that's good.

What is not good is you still have quite a number of matters earlier in the thread which you have not dealt with.  This post should clarify a couple of them: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84920.msg1698321#msg1698321

Random observation: posting from an iPad keyboard sucks

[Darien]

I am pretty sure that the possibility for reasonable, enlightening debate on this topic exists, but this thread isn't it.

I'm not.  I've done this on a half-dozen forums in the last dozen years, and none of them have been particularly reasoned or enlightening.  I'm not sure why I thought this one may be any different.  I gave up when the peer-reviewed data was posted and promptly ignored.  Now I'd just like Nakura to provide a substantive response.

Yeah this. Gun control is a pet topic of mine, and I've had this argument on dozens of forums. It never goes anywhere productive when arguing with pro-gun Americans, because many of them believe that 'common sense' trumps peer-reviewed research and empirical evidence.

You also get guys like Nakura, who claim to be in favour of evidence-based policymaking (when the evidence supports their worldview), but when the evidence is shown to support gun control they either ignore it and refuse to respond, or move the goalposts.

It's exhausting, and largely a massive waste of time for all concerned.

[Darien]

As for the US it's well-documented everywhere. Here's a pretty comprehensive and well-sourced study on gun control being used to suppress freed slaves: http://www.guncite.com/journals/cd-reg.html

While my head explodes at the fact you've pulled it from Guncite, the analysis is at least from reputable authors it seems, so that's a plus.  It makes for an interesting argument; but recognize that it is an argument and - like most history - it's an interpretation based on facts, not a fact unto itself.  Good reading, though, and seems to carry some academic validity at least in how its constructed.

It's also not the only interpretation:

The Hidden History of the Second Amendment
(Summary of it here: http://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2013/01/was-second-amendment-adopted-slaveholders)

That's by Professor Carl Bogus of the Roger Williams University Law School. He argues that the origin of the Second Amendment was to support slave patrols in the southern states - that is, that it was enacted to support slave owners, not for individual citizen's self-defence needs.

[Phantom Hoover]

With a name like that, you have to trust him!

[Darien]

Oh come on, that was too easy.

[Phantom Hoover]

If you're parading around with a name like that I have no sympathy for you.

[deathfun]

Honestly, don't see what's so difficult about adopting a similar system that's being used in Canada
Is there seriously something so wrong with that idea?

[Darien]

Honestly, don't see what's so difficult about adopting a similar system that's being used in Canada
Is there seriously something so wrong with that idea?

Something something Hitler fascism tyranny.

[Phantom Hoover]

Because people like this exist and are politically influential.

[Darien]

Oh man that video is gold.

[Lorric]

If you're parading around with a name like that I have no sympathy for you.

People don't choose their names. A person's name should have no influence on what you think of them. Unless they actually have selected their own name, then it says something about them.

 

[NGTM-1R]

It's a screen name. He chose it. Unless you think the admin mafia gives us all the names on this forum or something?

[Lorric]

It's a screen name. He chose it. Unless you think the admin mafia gives us all the names on this forum or something?

Carl Bogus?

[karajorma]

With a name like that, you have to trust him!

Maybe his parents just really liked the Bill and Ted movies.