Great Sociology Experiment with Second Amendment Gun Rights

[donhamrick]

American Common Defence Review
americancommondefencereview.blogspot.com/

I am the Unrepresented Plaintiff in HAMRICK v. PRESIDENT BUSH, et al, U.S. District Court/DC, No. 03-2160, RICO Act case for the Second Amendment. Dismissed with prejudice; Appealed, DC Circuit, No. 04-5316, Dismissal of RICO claims affirmed, Remanded on Second Amendment grounds. Pending on Motion for Rehearing & Rehearing En Banc disputing RICO Claims dismissal. Case is for National Open Carry Handgun. NRA refuses to help because their agenda is National Reciprocity for Concealed Carry.

I am learining as fact that social and legal norms are drifting far away from constitutional norms. My Second Amendment case advocates National Open Carry Handgun as a constitutional norm. Because of this I am been insulted, ridiculed, harassed, with all kinds of insults and I have been banned from many online discussion forums on the Second Amendment. I have come to theorize that online forums are high-tech versions of cults and klans for the behavior they exhibit to “newbies” on their forums.

[Gobbo]

I have come to theorize that online forums are high-tech versions of cults and klans for the behavior they exhibit to “newbies” on their forums

Fucking Newbie… only a newbish newbie would say something like that.

Just kidding, welcome to the forum. We’re all fairly open minded here… I don’t think you’re going to experience any sort of newbie hazing or some shit like that.

As for the 2nd ammendment: I think an armed populace is the best defence against tyranny. The main problem with that stance is that people are more prone to shoot each other.

To that I say we need a war on intelligence, on the media.

shifts to a Army Recruitment voiceover

“I’m helping my country by being subversive to the media, arrrrreee YOU?”

[donhamrick]

@Old_Gobbo

As for the 2nd ammendment: I think an armed populace is the best defence against tyranny. The main problem with that stance is that people are more prone to shoot each other.

My article, “Social Norming the Second Amendment: Reinstating a Constitutional Norm as a Social Norm Through Social Norms Marketing” would tend to reduce the liklihood ignorant shootings.

[gemty]

Welcome to the forums.

I’m going to disagree with you, not because your a newbie but because I don’t think we need to have more guns in the world.

Adressing our current social problems would go much further in reducing crime than giving everyone a gun. Not to mention the fact that once everyone has a gun it sure makes it difficult and dangerous for the police to enforce anything.

Also not to mention the fact that gun owners who keep a gun in the house for protection often end up shooting their own family members or themselves.

There is also the fact that one of the hallmarks of Western democracies is the fact that we pride ourselves on not using violence to solve our problems.

You may have the constitutional right to bear arms but are you actually willing to kill someone? Do you actually have the ability to take the weapon out quickly, pull the trigger, and splatter someone’s brain all over your bedroom wall? Your son’s, or your wife’s when you mistake them for a robber?

cheers,
gemty

[donhamrick]

I recommend that you read:

“Social Norming the Second Amendment: Reinstating a Constitutional Norm as a Social Norm Through Social Norms Marketing”

(page 3 if it doesn’t take you to directly downloading the file.)

[gemty]

I’m not going to take issue with social norming or second and ninth ammendment rights, but I am going to take issue with the claim you make that gun control increases crime rates.

You said:
“But, in reality such laws only increase murder rates and other violent crime rates.”

However, statistics available show that in Australia the murder rate has stayed essentially the same since 1915, even with the introduction of gun control in the 90’s:

From ABS:
murder rate /100 000
1915: 1.8
1941: 0.8 (lowest)
1988: 2.4 (highest)
1998: 1.6
2002: 1.6
2003: 1.5

(ABS ref 1301.0; 2003, and 2001)

And, from Crime in England and Wales 2002/2003
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb703.pdf

All violent crime in the BCS declined from approx 4 million in 1995 to approx 3 million in 2002/2003. See figure 5.2

I therefore directly challenge your assertion that, “…total gun prohibition, a path taken by England and Australia resulting in devastating jumps in murder, home invasions, and other violent crimes.” (p. 1)

Show me the devastating jump in murders and violent crime that occured in Australia and England over that period please.

Additionally, according to snopes.com the claim about Australian crime rates soaring since the gun buy back are an urban legend.
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

I look forward to any proof you have to offer that crime rates have increased as disastrously as you claim in Australia and England.

gemty

[Mastriani]

Ah yes, keen perception from the Wisened old monkey man.

Fucking Newbie… only a newbish newbie would say something like that.

I completely agree, and there should be a fucking nubie thread, where we can properly bash and haze them prior to entry to the rest of ILP.

Just kidding, welcome to the forum. We’re all fairly open minded here… I don’t think you’re going to experience any sort of newbie hazing or some shit like that.

cough, coughbullshitcough,cougharrogant bastards everywherecough,coughegomaniacough,cough … whew, glad that little fit is over … but no, the Mod Gestapo won’t allow hazing, sadly.

As for the 2nd ammendment: I think an armed populace is the best defence against tyranny. The main problem with that stance is that people are more prone to shoot each other.

For some reason it would appear that you are placing a negative connotation on the second half of that assertion.

Why?

Here let’s look at this objectively brother Gobbo: Human populace continually increasing, environmental destruction, ( as a matter of fact, Japanese environmental scientists reported this week the hole in the Ozone layer over Antarctica is at its’ largest ever), depletion of resources, increases in human warfare, plague, pestilence, famine … directly correlates with the continual decrease of intellect, which will only further the global demise.

To that I say we need a war on intelligence, on the media.

shifts to a Army Recruitment voiceover

“I’m helping my country by being subversive to the media, arrrrreee YOU?”

<slowly removes bong from Gobbo’s hands, waits for him to recover>

Ahem, blatant and abject use of terminology that inherently leads to an egregious oxymoron. You cannot presume intelligence, especially with respect to the media.

For those who don’t like conceal and carry laws, or aberrantly believe that peace can exist with humans still manifest on this plane of reality, I suggest the following two options:

Option A: Come learn my method, Globally Unilateral Totalitarian Genocide® ™.

Option B: Visit vhemt.org for education in voluntary human extinction priniciples.

Noobie class … Diiiiiiiiiismissed. Return to barracks recruit.

[tentative]

Mod gestapo here. First, welcome to ILP, donhamrick.

A couple of observations: Ignore the hell out of the wise asses. They may occasionally say something half way intelligent, but don’t count on it. This is a subject that generates a lot of heat, at least here in the U.S., so check your guns at the door. (and no, I don’t mean make sure they’re loaded). Make any kind of statement you want, but also make it clear that it is your opinion or back it with some documentation. It’s an interesting debate, and has been for decades, so have at it.

Incidentally, I shot combat for about 7 or 8 years, anywhere from 500 to a couple thousand rounds a week in a S&W 645, so to all participants: Don’t screw with me.

[Gorgias]

OP, could you please tell your story in short form? Thanks. What happened, or what did you do, etc, what exactly is this case about?

[Mastriani]

@tentative

Mod gestapo here. First, welcome to ILP, donhamrick.

A couple of observations: Ignore the hell out of the wise asses. They may occasionally say something half way intelligent, but don’t count on it. This is a subject that generates a lot of heat, at least here in the U.S., so check your guns at the door. (and no, I don’t mean make sure they’re loaded). Make any kind of statement you want, but also make it clear that it is your opinion or back it with some documentation. It’s an interesting debate, and has been for decades, so have at it.

Incidentally, I shot combat for about 7 or 8 years, anywhere from 500 to a couple thousand rounds a week in a S&W 645, so to all participants: Don’t screw with me.

Pfffft, that’s like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Try an M16A1 gas exchange burst fire with 203 on bottom rail. HA!

You say pop, pop … I say BOOM, splat.

[size=150]Viva la Revolution[/size]

[donhamrick]

[size=150]REBUTTAL TO: Mastriani & gemty[/size]

FACTS:

fraserinstitute.ca/admin/boo … entRev.pdf

Australia

Following shocking killings in 1996, the Australian gov-ernment made sweeping changes to the firearm legisla-tion in 1997. Unfortunately, the recent firearm regula-tions have not made the streets of Australia any safer. The total homicide rate, after having remained basically flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing again. The decline in homicide rate in the gun-permissive Unit-ed States stands out against the trend in Australia.

The divergence between Australia and the United States is even more apparent with violent crime. While violent crime is decreasing in the United States, it is in-creasing in Australia. Over the past six years, the over-all rate of violent crime in Australia has continued to increase. Robbery and armed robbery rates continue to rise. Armed robbery has increased 166% nationwide. The confiscation and destruction of legally owned fire-arms cost Australian taxpayers at least $500 million. The costs of the police services bureaucracy, including the hugely costly infrastructure of the gun registration system, has increased by $200 million since 1997. And for what? There has been no visible impact on violent crime. It is impossible to justify such a massive amount of the taxpayers’ money for no decrease in crime. For that kind of tax money, the police could have had more pa-trol cars, shorter shifts, or maybe even better equipment. Think of how many lives might have been saved.

---

press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

An interview with
John R. Lott, Jr.
author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws

---

cato.org/events/000616bf.html

[size=150]Watch a Video![/size]

Does owning or carrying guns deter violent crime? Or does it allow more citizens to harm one another? In 1998 legal scholar John Lott wrote a book that presented the most comprehensive analysis ever done on crime statistics and the right-to-carry laws. His provocative conclusion: More guns mean less crime. Now, in the new paperback edition of that book, Lott expands upon the path-breaking research of the first edition. Extensive new evidence is presented on the impact of right-to-carry, one-gun-a-month, safe storage, and other gun laws. This event features a discussion about guns, crime, safety, and self-defense.

---

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? … _id=372361

Confirming More Guns, Less Crime

JOHN R. LOTT Jr.American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
FLORENZ PLASSMANN State University of New York - Department of Economics
JOHN E. WHITLEY University of Adelaide - School of Economics

Abstract:

Analyzing county level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5 and 2.3 percent for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect. For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 billion and $3 billion per year.

Ayres and Donohue have simply misread their own results. Their own most generalized specification that breaks down the impact of the law on a year-by-year basis shows large crime reducing benefits. Virtually none of their claims that their county level hybrid model implies initial significant increases in crime are correct. Overall, the vast majority of their estimates based on data up to 1997 actually demonstrate that right-to-carry laws produce substantial crime reducing benefits. We show that their models also do an extremely poor job of predicting the changes in crime rates after 1997.

[donhamrick]

@Gorgias

OP, could you please tell your story in short form? Thanks. What happened, or what did you do, etc, what exactly is this case about?

americancommondefencereview.blog … html#links

americancommondefencereview.blog … html#links

[Mastriani]

[size=150]Rebuttal to donhamrick[/size]

Passivity is historically proven to not be an effective deterent to the violent will of others.

Nothing anyone says or desires will change that fact, ever.

Hominids are animals, with varying degrees of “intellect”, and make an assumption based upon a supposed “intellect”, that they are somehow other than animals. Dual fallacy, sorry.

Known facts of humanity, current and historical, side with this as being irrevocable. I would rather be armed and never fight, than to be met with a condition of fighting an armed assailant without protection.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution is also in place as a protection of the people against tyrranical bushes … errr … governments.

[donhamrick]

@Mastriani

Passivity is historically proven to not be an effective deterent to the violent will of others.

43 minutes into the VIDEO John Lott says the same thing as he concludes his commentary.

[tentative]

Hi Mas,

Pfffft, that’s like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Try an M16A1 gas exchange burst fire with 203 on bottom rail. HA!
You say pop, pop … I say BOOM, splat.

Oh, the long range stuff, huh? I forgot to mention the single shot .50. Anything the size of a grapefruit at a 1000 yds. + I’ll assume your head is slighly larger than a grapefruit, so…

[donhamrick]

@tentative

Hi Mas,

Pfffft, that’s like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Try an M16A1 gas exchange burst fire with 203 on bottom rail. HA!
You say pop, pop … I say BOOM, splat.

Oh, the long range stuff, huh? I forgot to mention the single shot .50. Anything the size of a grapefruit at a 1000 yds. + I’ll assume your head is slighly larger than a grapefruit, so…

Just nuke 'em! Accuracy not required. Nothing like the scorched earth approach.

[Disgruntled_Human]

Anyone here go to the NRA Annual Meeting?

[donhamrick]

@Disgruntled Human

Anyone here go to the NRA Annual Meeting?

I just updated my blog on Wayne LaPierre!

americancommondefencereview.blogspot.com/

[gemty]

I’ve demonstrated with a primary source that Australian homicide rates have stayed level and actually decreased since the introduction of gun control.

I’ve also showed how it was lower in 2002 than in 1915. And you’ve offered a secondary source refutation that claims the contrary. All you have to do is go to the ABS and you will see that murder rates have not increased exponentially.

ABS Crime rates 1915-2000
ABS Murder rate 2004

Furthermore, the ABS noted that murders with a weapon have decreased since 1996.

Primary sources are so much more useful than secondary ones.

But thanks for coming out to play.

gemty

[Disgruntled_Human]

Crime rates cannot be blamed by guns alone. It has to do with the culture, the period and what sort of crime. I’ll bet that most modern countries regardless of gun control have fewer crimes now than they did in 1915. Just because gun crimes have dropped doesn’t mean that the criminals aren’t using other weapons, improvised or not. Sure, if you’re very, very lucky, the criminals turned in their guns or were caught. More likely, the availability went down but crimes were still being commited.

So, if gun control laws don’t increase crime, does the fact that the crime stays the same tell us anything? It does. If, regardless of legislation, crime remains the same, why not let the responsible citizens own firearms?