Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

Ethereal · Nov 3, 2009

Agnapostate said:
For what reason? It seems to be selective incorporation of raw data that doesn't analyze the multiple variables that could alter crime rates and therefore doesn't actually measure the connection between firearm prevalence and crime. To do that, you'd need something like Duggan's More guns, more crime:

:shrug:

It'd be nice if I could actually examine this study in detail. However, I can already determine by the language used in the abstract that the evidence is strictly correlative. Certainly not definitive proof of anything.

ConservaBill · Nov 3, 2009

See gun laws vs. crime rate Kennesaw Ga..

Those that broadcast their non-gun ownership are a liability to LEOs and the Republic, and in conflict with the Constitution.

Like Big AL says: "the debate is OVER!"

Jerry · Nov 3, 2009

Kandahar said:
So just to be clear: Do you actually support this bill, or are you just being contrary for the sake of being contrary? How does your advocacy of this bill "stick it to people who support UHC" anyway, other than your assumption that some of the same people who support UHC don't own guns?

The 2nd Amendment threads don't get much action, but thinking back on it I believe I've always supported mandatory gun ownership, Universal Gun Car and fire arms safety training taught in the high-school right along with first-aid certification.

Kandahar said:
Only if one assumes that people who CHOOSE to own guns and people who have to be PRODDED to buy a gun will behave the same way when confronted by a criminal. A highly dubious assumption.

Let me turn this back on you to illustrate an anti-UHC position:
Only if one assumes that people who CHOOSE to own medical insurance and people who have to be PRODDED to buy medical insurance will behave the same way when confronted by an injury or disease. A highly dubious assumption.

Kandahar said:
Exactly. So why should the government be making it easier for criminals? And how would that not RAISE the crime rate, as it would completely ELIMINATE the criminal's fear of the victim's gun?

Keep in mind that it's the criminal (hard to distinguish from the government, I know, but stay with me here)...it's the criminal who is costing the government money and thus causing the problem. Anyone who believes they are in increased danger due to being on the list, can buy a gun for less than the fine and get off the list.

IMO the average citizen should be legally compelled to own a firearm just as every citizen should serve in the military (not "civil service", but the military).

Kandahar said:
Except you are advocating making it EASIER for the criminal to identify easy targets, thus accomplishing the exact opposite. It will decrease the odds that the criminal will die, and by the same logic, increase the frequency of those crimes.

Every time gun-ownership increases in a population, the crime rate goes down. Every time.

Kandahar said:
The difference is that eliminating the market externality in the case of health insurance is not necessarily dependent on your conscious choice to use the service or not (e.g. most people probably aren't concerned about their political philosophy when they've just been hit by a bus). Whereas in this case, it's ENTIRELY dependent on your behavior. It isn't the guns themselves that reduce the crime rate; it's the criminals' fear of their use. And if people who are forced to buy guns are not especially likely to use them, it won't do anything to reduce crime.

There's only one way for a criminal to find out if a gun owner won't use it....as I said, let the criminal roll the dice.

Kandahar said:
It's ESPECIALLY stupid to point out the easy targets to the criminals; that will INCREASE crime and the cost to the public.

I'll grant you the point that where firearm ownership has reduced crime before, I don't know that a non-gun owner list existed. I don't know of an example I could point to and say "here's a state that has the list and the crime rate still went down".

However, since I support mandatory gun ownership per-se as it does lower the crime rate, I'm going to seriously support this bill anyway. If you don't like the list, go buy a gun.

Ikari · Nov 3, 2009

Kandahar said:
No, that's registering your property. The gun is linked to you in case of a crime. If, on the other hand, the police wanted a database of everyone in the area who owned a gun, and wanted to search it for possible suspects, I would be opposed to that.

That's exactly what you called for. You've performed illegal search on my property, and databased all my information. You think they can't search on a name in a database? If all the guns I have are registered with my personal information attached, they can search on my name and come up with all the guns I own.

Kandahar · Nov 3, 2009

Jerry said:
The 2nd Amendment threads don't get much action, but thinking back on it I believe I've always supported mandatory gun ownership, Universal Gun Car and fire arms safety training taught in the high-school right along with first-aid certification.

Why? What's the point in forcing someone to own a gun if they aren't going to use it should the need ever arise?

Jerry said:
Let me turn this back on you to illustrate an anti-UHC position:
Only if one assumes that people who CHOOSE to own medical insurance and people who have to be PRODDED to buy medical insurance will behave the same way when confronted by an injury or disease. A highly dubious assumption.

You don't think that people who have to be prodded to buy health insurance will go to the ER when they have an emergency? If that were the case, then there wouldn't be a problem of people using it and sticking someone else with the bill in the first place.

On the other hand, the argument that guns deter criminals is ENTIRELY dependent on the behavior of the gun-owners. Imagine a world where everyone owned a gun, but no one ever confronted criminals with them. Do you think that would deter criminals? Of course not; the people might as well not have the gun at all.

Jerry said:
Keep in mind that it's the criminal (hard to distinguish from the government, I know, but stay with me here)...it's the criminal who is costing the government money and thus causing the problem. Anyone who believes they are in increased danger due to being on the list, can buy a gun for less than the fine and get off the list.

Then you aren't actually reducing crime, you're just shifting it to the most vulnerable people and imposing an additional cost on others.

Jerry said:
Every time gun-ownership increases in a population, the crime rate goes down. Every time.

Almost any example you can cite is an example of eliminating BARRIERS to gun ownership, not active government prodding in FAVOR of gun ownership. You have absolutely no evidence that the crime rate will go down if the government encourages people to buy guns who have no stomach for, or interest in, guns.

Jerry said:
There's only one way for a criminal to find out if a gun owner won't use it....as I said, let the criminal roll the dice.

The criminal can "roll the dice" on whether the homeowner has a gun at all WITHOUT this list. As it is, you're making it nice and easy for him to AVOID rolling the dice.

American · Nov 3, 2009

How do they know that providing people with health insurance will keep them from continuing to go to the ER?

Goobieman · Nov 3, 2009

American said:
How do they know that providing people with health insurance will keep them from continuing to go to the ER?

The argument here is that while some people will not use a gun if they have it no matter how desperate the situation, no one will not use health insurance under the same degree of desperation.

Aside from the fact that the above assumptions are unsupported and convienently created to allow a certain point to be made, the argument fails to consider that the universal ownership of firearms does not require the universal use of said firearms to create an effective deterrent to crime.

Kandahar · Nov 3, 2009

Goobieman said:
The argument here is that while some people will not use a gun if they have it no matter how desperate the situation, no one will not use health insurance under the same degree of desperation.

Aside from the fact that the above assumptions are unsupported and convienently created to allow a certain point to be made,

Which part do you dispute: That people who choose to buy a gun will behave differently than people who are forced to buy a gun (i.e. they're more likely to shoot an intruder)? Or that people who choose to buy health insurance will behave approximately the same as people who are forced to buy it (i.e. almost everyone will try to get health care if they have an emergency)?

Furthermore, the health insurance mandate will correct a market externality (i.e. people waiting until they need the ER to seek help, and/or waiting until they get sick to get insurance), whereas the gun mandate will make a market externality worse (i.e. making it easier for criminals to operate without a deterrent, thus increasing the crime rate).

Goobieman said:
the argument fails to consider that the universal ownership of firearms does not require the universal use of said firearms to create an effective deterrent to crime.

If everyone owns a gun but people aren't using them anymore than before (because the additional gun-owners didn't want the gun in the first place), then there is no additional deterrent. It isn't the mere PRESENCE of the gun that creates a deterrent; it's the threat of its USE.

Goobieman · Nov 3, 2009

Kandahar said:
Which part do you dispute:

I said:

...the above assumptions are unsupported...

Your response does not change this; your assumptions remain unsupported.

If everyone owns a gun but people aren't using them anymore than before...

Another unsupported assumption.
What if everone has a gun and as a result more people ARE using them?

Kandahar · Nov 3, 2009

Goobieman said:
I said:

Your response does not change this; your assumptions remain unsupported.

I see you're playing your games again instead of answering the question. I have a feeling this is going to be yet another short exchange between us. However, since you asked a question I will answer it, even though you did not show me the same courtesy:

Goobieman said:
What if everone has a gun and as a result more people ARE using them?

Then I suspect that would create a deterrent. The problem here is A) you have no evidence to support the assertion that more people WILL use them, and B) this has to not only reduce crime, but reduce crime by ENOUGH to compensate for the deadweight loss of forcing people to buy guns they don't want or need.

Goobieman · Nov 3, 2009

Kandahar said:
I see you're playing your games again instead of answering the question.

I'm sorry -- you've failed to comprehend my statement.

I said your assumptions were unsupported. That means you havent shown them to be true. Noting that your statements haven't been shown to be true does not necessarily dispute them -- and so, you asking me which ones I dispute has nothing to do with what I said.

Meanwhile, MY statement stands -- your assumptions, the foundation upon which you rest your argument, remain unsupported.

Then I suspect that would create a deterrent.

So then you understand the need for you to support your assumption that universal gun ownership will not result in an increase in the defensive use of guns.

Kandahar · Nov 3, 2009

Goobieman said:
I'm sorry -- you've failed to comprehend my statement.

I said your assumptions were unsupported. That means you havent shown them to be true.

Kinda hard for me to support them if I have to guess which ones you're referring to. When you figure out which ones you're disputing, be sure and let me know.

Goobieman said:
So then you understand the need for you to support your assumption that universal gun ownership will not result in an increase in the defensive use of guns.

YOU are the one arguing in favor of a bill that takes away freedom and increases the crime rate.

Crunch · Nov 3, 2009

Kandahar said:
Uh huh. And why is making things easier for robbers a compelling interest of the state? Did you have anything useful to say, or were you just trolling?

Just trolling... :mrgreen:

Jerry · Nov 3, 2009

Kandahar said:
Why? What's the point in forcing someone to own a gun if they aren't going to use it should the need ever arise?

To lower the crime rate.

The one exception does not in any way invalidate the FACT that when everyone is forced to own a gun, the crime rate goes down.

Kandahar said:
You don't think that people who have to be prodded to buy health insurance will go to the ER when they have an emergency? If that were the case, then there wouldn't be a problem of people using it and sticking someone else with the bill in the first place.

I was referring to the people who aren't likely to go to a hospital unless it's life or death.

Kandahar said:
On the other hand, the argument that guns deter criminals is ENTIRELY dependent on the behavior of the gun-owners. Imagine a world where everyone owned a gun, but no one ever confronted criminals with them. Do you think that would deter criminals? Of course not; the people might as well not have the gun at all.

Evidence shows that a gun-owning population does use the guns out of some silly notion of not wanting to be a victim, and therefore the crime rate lowers. The hypothetical "just let him rape me" population you imagine does not actually exist.

Kandahar said:
Then you aren't actually reducing crime, you're just shifting it to the most vulnerable people and imposing an additional cost on others.

As gun ownership increases in a population, the crime rate goes down.

Kandahar said:
Almost any example you can cite is an example of eliminating BARRIERS to gun ownership, not active government prodding in FAVOR of gun ownership. You have absolutely no evidence that the crime rate will go down if the government encourages people to buy guns who have no stomach for, or interest in, guns.

Case in point:

Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia --- Crime Rate Plummets

Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 12:29:03 PM by doug from upland

by Chuck Baldwin

The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.

<snip>

Contrast this with Chicago's complete ban on hand guns and their crime rate.

Does UHC offer to reduce illness/injury in the same way that mandatory gun-ownership has proved that can lower crime?

Kandahar said:
The criminal can "roll the dice" on whether the homeowner has a gun at all WITHOUT this list. As it is, you're making it nice and easy for him to AVOID rolling the dice.

The at-risk population would be reduced from the many who were merly not inclined to own, to way down to those few who can not legally possess.

Jerry · Nov 3, 2009

Crunch said:
Just trolling... :mrgreen:

Once you go troll you never re-roll :mrgreen:

+1 if you get that

Kandahar · Nov 3, 2009

Jerry said:
To lower the crime rate.

The one exception does not in any way invalidate the FACT that when everyone is forced to own a gun, the crime rate goes down.

You have absolutely no evidence to support that claim.

Jerry said:
I was referring to the people who aren't likely to go to a hospital unless it's life or death.

They could still game the system by not buying health insurance until they became sick.

Jerry said:
Evidence shows that a gun-owning population does use the guns out of some silly notion of not wanting to be a victim, and therefore the crime rate lowers. The hypothetical "just let him rape me" population you imagine does not actually exist.

No, but the "just keep the unwanted gun locked in a box in the back of the closet, don't learn how to safely handle it, and don't buy any ammo for it" population probably does. And they're precisely the people who don't want to own a gun in the first place.

Jerry said:
As gun ownership increases in a population, the crime rate goes down.

There is NO evidence to suggest that forcing people to buy guns will have the same effect that ALLOWING people to buy guns does.

Jerry said:
Case in point:

What you may not know is that this ordinance did not actually change the gun ownership rate in this community by a significant amount. Most people in the community already owned guns, and the ordinance was never actually enforced. Furthermore, a single example of a small town would not be sufficient evidence anyway. Who knows what other law enforcement practices they implemented simultaneously? You'd need a much larger sample size to draw any kind of statistical inference from this.

Jerry said:
Does UHC offer to reduce illness/injury in the same way that mandatory gun-ownership has proved that can lower crime?

It has done no such thing. If you are going to make such claims, you have to actually be able to prove them.

Jerry said:
The at-risk population would be reduced from the many who were merly not inclined to own, to way down to those few who can not legally possess.

You're still just redirecting the crime to those defenseless people, rather than eliminating it. And you are still ELIMINATING the risk for the criminal, not making it higher.

Jerry · Nov 3, 2009

Kandahar said:
You have absolutely no evidence to support that claim.

That's a silly thing to say in the same post you address an example of said "non-existent" evidence :lol:

Kandahar said:
No, but the "just keep the unwanted gun locked in a box in the back of the closet, don't learn how to safely handle it, and don't buy any ammo for it" population probably does. And they're precisely the people who don't want to own a gun in the first place.

They are wrong for not wanting a firearm in their home. **** them

Kandahar said:
What you may not know is that this ordinance did not actually change the gun ownership rate in this community by a significant amount.

Citation needed.

Kandahar said:
Most people in the community already owned guns,

Citation needed.

Kandahar said:
and the ordinance was never actually enforced.

Citation needed.

Kandahar said:
Furthermore, a single example of a small town would not be sufficient evidence anyway.

Uh, no, that wasn't the point.

I did not provide that example to prove the greater argument of 'more gun = less crime'.

I gave that example to counter your claim that I had "absolutely no evidence".

In support of the greater argument I already gave you reference to a well researched book on the topic.

Kandahar said:
Who knows what other law enforcement practices they implemented simultaneously?

So you admit that you don't know anything about the situation. See that's why I don't just take your word for it.

Kandahar said:
You'd need a much larger sample size to draw any kind of statistical inference from this.

Which is why I already gave you a better refrence.

Kandahar said:
It has done no such thing. If you are going to make such claims, you have to actually be able to prove them.

It appears I'm the only one given any evidence of anything, even though evidence has been asked of you.

Kandahar said:
You're still just redirecting the crime to those defenseless people, rather than eliminating it. And you are still ELIMINATING the risk for the criminal, not making it higher.

It's their choice to be defenseless.

That choice is wrong, and I support encouraging them to make a better choice.

Goobieman · Nov 4, 2009

Kandahar said:
Kinda hard for me to support them if I have to guess which ones you're referring to. When you figure out which ones you're disputing, be sure and let me know.

Your response here is clear and indusputable proof that you are not paying attention.

I have not -disputed- anything.

I HAVE asked you to support your assumptions that:
-A significant number of people will not use a gun if they have it no matter how desperate the situation
- Everyone will use health insurance under the same degree of desperation.
-That even if everyone has a gun, the number of people that will use a gun to defend themselces will not significantly increase.

These three assumptions are the foundation of your argument; again, I ask you to support them.

Otherwise, your argument is nothing but a strawman.

YOU are the one arguing in favor of a bill that takes away freedom and increases the crime rate.

YOU are, again, not paying attention, as I have not argued for or against anything.

TheHat · Nov 4, 2009

Ikari said:
LiveLeak.com - Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

Hahah. Of course, I don't really agree with databasing and registering...well most anyone. So I really wouldn't support something like this. But I like the idea of it, makes me laugh. Why should the gun owners be the one's to register, we're just exercising a right. It's much better to register non-gun owners as they're the one's refusing to do their duty to the Republic and will be useless in a zombie fight.

Umm...I also don't know why there's a video with that link, there's other links

A Novel Idea. Register non-gun owners - Patriotic Resistance

:rofl:

This is fantastic! I like the way this guy thinks! Why should I as a citizen with the right to own a gun, have to register that gun?

Eat your hearts out Brady Bill backers!!! :thumbs:

TheHat · Nov 4, 2009

Hatuey said:
Yeah...could also be that Vermont is one large suburb and there is not really 'any' crime to commit. You'd have to be seriously desperate to A) make the necessary drive to rob anything of value in Vermont or B) just plain dumb. It's kind of like how Nebraska isn't exactly known for murders. There's really nobody to kill.

Since we now live in "post-racial USA", since we have a black President, may I ask how many blacks live in Vermont and Nebraska?

EpicDude86 · Nov 4, 2009

Hatuey said:
Yeah...could also be that Vermont is one large suburb and there is not really 'any' crime to commit. You'd have to be seriously desperate to A) make the necessary drive to rob anything of value in Vermont or B) just plain dumb. It's kind of like how Nebraska isn't exactly known for murders. There's really nobody to kill.

They're all so chilled out (no pun intended) on Ben and Jerry's. Plus they live next door to "LIVE FREE OR DIE!" so it's...kinda a good neighborhood to be in.

EpicDude86 · Nov 4, 2009

TheHat said:
Since we now live in "post-racial USA", since we have a black President, may I ask how many blacks live in Vermont and Nebraska?

RACISM! RACISM! OMG WHY BRING COLOR INTO IT YOU RACIST!

lol just kidding, you bigot.

Just kidding again. Not many I would assume, though I'm sure there are lots in population hubs. I've counted 5 black people since I moved to New Hampshire. 5. Coming from North Carolina, I'm in culture shock. I can't leave my house...I can't walk down the street...I don't know what to do with myself...

1 Easy Target · Nov 4, 2009

jackalope said:
You don't have the right to insult people who's arguments are not compelling to you.

Actually, she does.

It is called the 1st Amendment. You may not like what she is saying, but she has the "right" to say it.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Misattributed to Voltaire but still pertinent is you truly believe in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Jerry · Nov 4, 2009

1 Easy Target said:
Actually, she does. It is called the 1st Amendment. You may not like what she is saying, but she has the "right" to say it.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Misattributed to Voltaire but still pertinent is you truly believe in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Actually, she doesn't:

1. Freedom of Speech - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

At Debate Politics we see freedom of speech as the right to communicate ideas. With this right comes the responsibility to choose your words carefully and respect the rights of others. Common sense dictates the difference between one expressing themselves and one who is disruptive. If you are focused on contributing to the community, you will not have to be concerned with being a disruption. Disruptive behavior, such as personal attacks, can lead to temporary or permanent revocation of posting privileges.

3. Flaming - "Originally, flame meant to carry forth in a passionate manner in the spirit of honorable debate. Flames most often involved the use of flowery language and flaming well was an art form. More recently flame has come to refer to any kind of derogatory comment no matter how witless or crude."[google] In a forum with sensitive topics such as this, derogatory flaming is bound to happen. Common sense will prevail, yet this is not an invitation to flame. e.g. "You stupid *****ing moron," is completely unacceptable and could lead to a suspension of posting privileges.

4. Don't be a jerk - This simply means what it sounds like.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/forum-rules/28594-forum-rules.html

1 Easy Target · Nov 4, 2009

Kandahar said:
Why? What's the point in forcing someone to own a gun if they aren't going to use it should the need ever arise?

Kandahar said:
On the other hand, the argument that guns deter criminals is ENTIRELY dependent on the behavior of the gun-owners. Imagine a world where everyone owned a gun, but no one ever confronted criminals with them. Do you think that would deter criminals? Of course not; the people might as well not have the gun at all.

Kandahar said:
Then you aren't actually reducing crime, you're just shifting it to the most vulnerable people and imposing an additional cost on others.

Almost any example you can cite is an example of eliminating BARRIERS to gun ownership, not active government prodding in FAVOR of gun ownership. You have absolutely no evidence that the crime rate will go down if the government encourages people to buy guns who have no stomach for, or interest in, guns.

The criminal can "roll the dice" on whether the homeowner has a gun at all WITHOUT this list. As it is, you're making it nice and easy for him to AVOID rolling the dice.

You, sir, are being deliberately obtuse. In a situation where most homes have guns in them, most criminals will turn to something other than home invasions and robberies. There are several reasons for this.

1. The criminals know that most homes have guns in them.
2. The criminals have no way to know whether or not the home owner is a radical pacifist or a radical would be killer just waiting to "get some" out of a stupid criminal.
3. Even radical pacifists have been known to reach their limits and kill people who invade their homes.

There have been a number of studies on the crime rates in states that passed laws allowing easy access to firearms and protections from prosecution to people who were defending their homes and families. Interviews with prisoners convicted of home invasions and armed robbery indicated that the presence of guns in the home was a huge deterrent to those criminals. To argue otherwise is disingenuous at best.

I assume you know all this but just like to argue for the sake of it.

Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

Ethereal

ConservaBill

Active member

Jerry

Ikari

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

Goobieman

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Goobieman

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Goobieman

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Crunch

Jerry

Jerry

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Jerry

Goobieman

TheHat

Well-known member

TheHat

Well-known member

EpicDude86

EpicDude86

1 Easy Target

Member

Jerry

1 Easy Target

Member