Gun Permit Holders Substantially More Law Abiding
The other day, the New York Times published a story with data that demonstrates that gun permit holders in North Carolina are 20x less likely to commit a felony than the average American [not entirely sure the math is right here, but the crime rate among permit holders is certainly lower than the average]. Of course, the Times readership does not want to hear that, since it does not fit their world view. So the Times, ever sensitive to its readership's needs, writes the article as a scare story about why we need tighter gun control.
What are you talking about, I Got, you were quick to quote how many times the Government got new powers and it would only apply to the minority only to find that Government quickly applied to the majority just like the Income Tax: a small tax on the very high income earners quickly became a large tax on almost everyone. So why say it's okay for some to be disarmed because they have certain attributes? Soon Government will find everyone has such attribute and disarm the masses. Why can't anyone have a right to his gun? Until someone proceeds with committing a crime then he's not a criminal. Why should he be disarmed after doing time? He served his time and thus should be a full citizen again with full rights. After all, he should have the same right to defend himself and his family once again. Just as crimes committed with cars doesn't lead to car control, so too should gun crimes not impinge the anyone's right to private gun ownership.
P.S. ruralcounsel: do quote such a court rulling, the only court ruling that claimed a personal right did so in that people have a right only on their personal, private residence. Big difference.
Gil, again, I'm not going to allow you to try and turn this into an "all or nothing" debate. NO RULE is absolute. I will grant that.
And yes, it IS possible for a government to abuse the "convicted felons" exception. It is, however, particularly difficult -- the contortions required to apply it to a large percentage of the citizenry is a very high bar. And the Constitutional provisions work because they apply to a huge percentage of the populace, enough to reasonably overpower any standing army.
>>> Soon Government will find everyone has such attribute and disarm the masses.
This is just a flat out ludicrously stupid statement, Gil. How long did you swizzle that trepanning rod around?
"Convicted felon" means a lot less than it used to, I grant. There was a time when "don't make a Federal case out of it" actually meant something. But it's still a long ways from being easy to "extend" to the general populace.
>> Just as crimes committed with cars don’t lead to car control
LOL, yeah, crimes committed with cars lead to both confiscation of the car and revocation of the DL. What more "car control" did you think possible or likely? The courts probably already do that, too.
a) Nice point, Hunt.
b) rural, Gil appears to have swapped his argument for one that doesn't get shot out from under him easily, which is the argument for CC over home protection. It's still easy to deal with, but he's still floundering around repeating his readily disputed claims attempting to get the last word.
b1) That's just waiting for another test case to go to the SCotUS, Gil. Then the right to CC for law abiding citizens is likely to be extended. In fact, I'm betting this is an intentional test case, since I find it hard to believe someone who got to medical school would be unaware that CC laws vary from state to state.
b2) I've already covered this anyway and blown it out of the water by pointing to the general stats on crime lowering anywhere in general that CC is allowed. This is statistically relevant because you can compare the lowering in states WITH CC to those WITHOUT CC to show that it's greater than the "general trend" noted above. You can also compare the result in states immediately following adoption of relaxed CC to those with no CC as well as those that already have relaxed CC. In every case, there is a statistically notable drop in crime which is above any overall trend in lowered crime rates. Moreover, it's happened enough times in enough differing venues to make it clear it's not likely to be some "statistical fluke" of a one-off instance. So either come up with a refutation or an argument for why that's invalid, or concede you've utterly lost on all points -- relaxed CC lowers crime -- and SU.
Actually, I Got, you were quick to point that if Government is given an inch then it'll take a mile:
===
The “Rico Statutes” were passed, supposedly to allow the government to get at the assets of the high-ranking mafia which they purportedly could not touch. The SCotUS has made it clear that they CAN be (and hence HAVE BEEN) applied to you and me. I dunno about you, but I have no “mafia connections”.
The “Patriot Act” was passed to give the government increased access to terrorists. Within less than six months, the USJD was holding SEMINARS for LEOs around the country about how TPA could be used in cases NOT involving terrorists — that is, they were already prepared to, and teaching others how to, apply it to you and me.
These are HARDLY atypical, they are instead utterly typical of government behavior.
===
I also pointed out the Income Tax was also supposed to a minor tax yet quickly turned into a major tax.
Strange how pro-gun people called gun control "citizen disarmament". In other words, Government would ilke to disarm dangerous criminals but they tend to have a habit of gaining illegal firearms as well as a tendency to shoot back.
And yet, your example requires that EVERYONE who owns a gun be delineated as a "convicted felon".
In other words, A HIGH BAR IS SET for the removal of the Right -- and one tied direcly to ABUSE of the Right (with Rights come Responsibilities to use them properly. You have the Right to run down the streets of a town shouting "Niggers!!!!" -- you also have a Responsibility to not ABUSE your Right by doing such a thing.
In other words, your example is NOT a "warm-body" one, like EVERY EXAMPLE IN QUESTION.
I already SAID this -- explicitly -- but, once more, you repeat your points trying to get in the last word.
Guess what? Eph off, you're not going to get it by doing nothing more than repeating points already refuted. Swizzle that rod around some more, huh? Maybe you can reduce your keyboarding skills with it and make everyone happier.
>> direcly
"directly"... duh. typo.