Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumEleanor Roosevelt, gun owner
“I think that having an icon in the political arena and, truly, someone who was a world leader, having a true understanding of what your Second Amendment rights are, as an American, is just incredibly enlightening,” said Mike McCormack, chairman of the Dutchess County Republican Committee. “She got it.”
Dutchess County Democratic Committee Chairwoman Elisa Sumner had a very different opinion.
“I don’t think you can compare what she did in 1957 with 2015,” Sumner said. “At the time, you weren’t having mass shootings. You didn’t have Sandy Hook (elementary school shootings). You didn’t have people walking around with semi-automatic weapons, Uzis and Kalishnikovs. I don’t think there is a comparison at all. You’re talking about two different time periods. “She needed protection because of her liberal, civil rights circumstances. She needed protection,” Sumner said.
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/story/news/2015/07/12/eleanor-roosevelt-gun-owner/29953377/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
OakCliffDem
(1,274 posts)In 1957 a person could buy a handgun through the mail.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Sad as he will in all likelihood have another gun related post locked in GD due to it being an SOP violation ad against Skinner's guidance of gun related posts in GD. To me a host should be held to a very high standard and that behavior is somewhat disappointing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026968235
Shamash
(597 posts)The firearms laws passed in I think 1934 prohibited mail order sales of handguns. Longarms could still be bought through the mail, including "assault rifles" or even WW2 surplus anti-tank rifles. And no ID or background check was required. Yet the firearm murder rate was the same or less than it is today.
The assertion by Elisa Sumner in the excerpt is flat-out wrong. Things like high-capacity semi-auto pistols and rifles were readily available, and mass shootings were not unknown. The union struggles of the early 1900's had full-blown shootouts between armed groups. There were 6 public mass shootings in the 1960's and 13 in the 1970's. There were 19 school shootings in the 1950's and 17 in the 1960's, including one that killed 17 and wounded 31.
ileus
(15,396 posts)The types of people these kind of articles are geared towards live in their own close minded reality and eat up this kind of fluff.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)To get some of those in the mail!!
Look at the prices!!!!!!
The Mailing of Firearms Act, aka "The Miller Act" prohibited the mailing of some pistols.
https://books.google.com/books?id=DhRzjUeZK4oC&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=mailing+pistols+act+1927+miller+act&source=bl&ots=VWKPwmQZwe&sig=Yiuugy5ZSBqmwK3oglmFbz2wVjs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAWoVChMIhpS-5aLYxgIVxiceCh0l-wmj#v=onepage&q=mailing%20pistols%20act%201927%20miller%20act&f=false
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)sham: Longarms could still be bought through the mail, including "assault rifles" or even WW2 surplus anti-tank rifles. And no ID or background check was required. Yet the firearm murder rate was the same or less than it is today.
While today the violent crime rate is double to triple what it was then. Murder rate is only ~2% of the violent crime rate, & is incorporated within it.
Sham cherry picks a start & end point for murder rates (then & today), ignoring all the years in between where the murder rates were well above the early part of the 20th century. The AVERAGE Murder rate since the mid 70's would place it well above what it was in the 1930's, maybe half as much higher imo.
Sham makes it appear the quarter million murders between then & today, were just, well, largely nothing.
sham: The assertion by Elisa Sumner in the excerpt is flat-out wrong. Things like high-capacity semi-auto pistols and rifles were readily available,
To the military semi-auto pistols & rifles were readily available, but not to the general public; whether due to price or disinterest dunno (likely availability), but the semi - auto gun craze didn't start until a while after wwII, & then gained steam thru the 60's & 70's & is what in good part contributed to the rise in violent crime rate & murder rate in the 80's & 90's.
what elisa sumner said, correctly: You didn’t have people walking around with semi-automatic weapons, Uzis and Kalishnikovs. I don’t think there is a comparison at all. You’re talking about two different time periods.
She was spot on, even disregarding the brands. People rarely owned semi-autos in the 30's 40's & even 50's since they were still in early stages of development & largely allotted to the military.
Shamash continues to sham away, with disinformation.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)John Browning's iconic .45 ACP semi-auto pistol was adopted by the Army in 1911 and by the Navy and Marines two years later. I'm puzzled that you would think that twenty, thirty, and forty years later semi-autos would still have been "in early stages of development." The "1911" was not the only one, either. The Colt Pocket Hammerless was largely a civilian semi-auto, as were the various other "pocket pistols" put out by Colt, Browning, FN, Beretta, etc.
Shall we talk about correlation and causation again? Miami Vice notwithstanding, I mean.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)straw man: John Browning's iconic .45 ACP semi-auto pistol was adopted by the Army in 1911 and by the Navy and Marines two years later. I'm puzzled that you would think that twenty, thirty, and forty years later semi-autos would still have been "in early stages of development."
Early stages of usage & development for civilians, and relatively light military production until wwII.
wiki: The M1911 is a semi-auto, magazine-fed, recoil-operated pistol chambered for the .45 ACP cartridge. It served as the standard-issue sidearm for US Armed Forces from 1911 to 1986. It was first used in later stages of the Philippine-American War {~1900}, widely used in WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War.
.. By the beginning of 1917, a total of 68,533 M1911 pistols had been delivered to US armed forces by Colt and Springfield Armory. .. WWII and the years leading up to it created a great demand. During the war, about 1.9 million units were procured by the US Govt for all forces, production being undertaken by several manufacturers, including Remington Rand (900,000), Colt (400,000), Ithaca (400,000), Union (50,000). . The M1911A1 was a favored small arm of both US and allied military personnel during the war
After World War II, the M1911 continued to be a mainstay of the United States Armed Forces in the Korean War and the Vietnam War.
Observe the emboldened dates for production of these latter day 'saints', & try to realize that these could not have been 'popular' in the early 1900's:
Civilian models Colt M1991A1 Compact ORM pistol
A Colt M1991A1 Compact Colt Government Mk. IV Series 70 (1970–1983):
Colt Government Mk. IV Series 80 (1983–present):
Colt 1991 Series (1991–2001 ORM; 2001–present NRM)
sophisticated semi auto pistols did not achieve widespread acceptance until after wwII, revolvers still being the most popular civilian handgun by far: During World War II, revolvers were still issued by various major powers, but their use was decreasing.. After World War II most nations eventually adopted 9mm caliber pistols >> for their standard-issue military pistols .. After {wwII}, the almost universal trend has been for semi-automatic pistols to replace revolvers for military use, although the transition has been slower in police and civilian use.
... In 1971 Smith & Wesson offered a safe double-action, high-capacity pistol, the Model 59. CZ-75 in 1975. Beretta introduced the Beretta 92 also in 1975.. groundbreaking Glock 17 in 1982, and SIG Sauer model P226 in 1983. Walther introduced their high-capacity {walther} P88 in 1988. In the early 1990s Heckler & Koch combined what they considered to be the most desirable attributes of semi-autos.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_pistol
.... http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172169435#post48
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)Civilian models Colt M1991A1 Compact ORM pistol
A Colt M1991A1 Compact Colt Government Mk. IV Series 70 (1970–1983):
Colt Government Mk. IV Series 80 (1983–present):
Colt 1991 Series (1991–2001 ORM; 2001–present NRM)
Latter-day compact models aimed at the concealed-carry market are a red herring. Apparently you are unaware that civilians have always been able to purchase the "milspec" models and have done so by the millions, beginning in the early twentieth century.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)straw man: Latter-day compact models aimed at the concealed-carry market are a red herring.
You are wrong, the latter 20th century dates are quite relevant, since they demonstrate an increased production & proliferation of semi-auto handguns during the very time period I have noted (that semi-automatic handguns substantively helped propel the rise in violent crime rate from circa 1960's thru early 1990's).
straw man: Apparently you are unaware that civilians have always been able to purchase the "milspec" models and have done so by the millions, beginning in the early twentieth century
Specious & misleading; they were predominantly produced for military, with small production & purchase by civilians, which does not refute the contention that semi-autos gained in civilian popularity greatly after wwII.
Colt Government Model 1911, a civilian version. In 1929 this pistol was introduced, chambered for a new .38 Super Automatic round. This version has a 9 round magazine capacity. In 1906-1907 the US armed forces announced trials for a new pistol, that would replace a number of older pistols revolvers. Since its introduction it was used in almost every military conflict, including the WWI. In 1924, its modified version, the M1911A1, was adopted by the US Army. During the WWII several millions of these pistols were produced in the USA by various companies. http://www.military-today.com/firearms/m1911.htm
A whopping total of 152,000 Colt Govt m1911A1 models were evidently produced by 1928: .. near mint condition, all original Colt Government Model 1911A1 Pistol from 1928.. this Colt >> manufactured Hartford, Conn in 1928. The serial number range for Colt Government Model Pistols in 1928 was C152,000 to C154,999, which is a small production run of only 3,000 pistols that year.
It is important to note that there was no military 1911A1 production from 1925 until 1936, only commercially available Government Models in the 1911A1 configuration .. Colt took the opportunity to not only capitalize on the popularity of the pistol based on its service in WWI, but to also continue to refine the design for any future military contracts. http://www.newmarketarms.com/mint-early-colt-government-model-1911a1-1928-p-1161.html
Colt began shipping the commercial (Government Model) pistols almost at the same time they began shipping the military m1911's. The first shipment of 50 military m1911's were shipped to the Springfield Armory on 1/4/1912. The first Government Model pistol was shipped on 4/13/1912. A total of 1899 Government Model pistols were sold and shipped during 1912 - all were commercially marked and sold to the general public (unless you count a few personal purchases from military officers of government model pistols, but these too were commercially marked).
One blogger KerryL seems knowledgeable re production, & he pegs early civilian 'govt model' production at 6,000 per two years, about 10% of military production of 60,000, for 1912 & 1913:
Colt's Government Model production was as follows:
1912 C1-C1899 --- 1913 C1900-C5399
Colt's military m1911 production was as follows:
1912 No 1-No 17250 --- 1913 No 17251-No 60400 http://www.gunvaluesboard.com/what-is-my-1911-colt-worth.-third-production-round-c1118..-9...-19076530.html
straw man: civilians have always been able to purchase the "milspec" models and have done so by the millions, beginning in the early twentieth century.
For this to make sense in context, you'd have to show how 'millions' of civilian semi-auto handguns were purchased by civilians prior to wwII, as per what I've written, as well as having displaced revolvers as the civilian handgun of choice. There could've been millions between wwII & 1960's, but that still doesn't disprove the greater rise in popularity & abundance of semi-autos from 1960's on.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)They demonstrate nothing of the kind. Certainly that was the beginning of the dominance of the semi-auto, but the ones you cite are only a drop in the bucket of the huge number of semi-autos produced in those years. Their inclusion says nothing about prior popularity of other 1911 offerings. You seem to have forgotten what you were trying to disprove: that semi-auto pistols were common among civilians in the pre-war and immediate postwar years. Not as popular as revolvers, of course, but far more popular than you contend.
For this to make sense in context, you'd have to show how 'millions' of civilian semi-auto handguns were purchased by civilians prior to wwII, as per what I've written, as well as having displaced revolvers as the civilian handgun of choice.
Wrong again, Jimbo. "Have done so" is the present perfect, indicating "up to and including the time of speaking." (That's your grammar lesson for today.) I told you when civilians began buying 1911s: the early twentieth century. I told you how many have been sold to-date, which is millions, by many manufacturers in many countries: not just Colt, doncha know. I never contended that semi-autos displaced revolvers before WWII -- that's your own straw man. Nor did I deny that semi-autos took off in the postwar period. What I disagree with is your contention that few civilians owned semi-autos before the 1960s. All your numbers about production of Colt 1911s are another red herring, since, as I have said, many manufacturers produced 1911s. Not only that, but there were other semi-auto handguns on the market that had little or no military application: Colt 1903s and 1908s, Savage .32s, various small pistols from Browning, FN, Beretta, Walther, Mauser, CZ, Astra, etc. Semi-auto pistols were firmly ensconced in the civilian market and in popular culture.
Don't believe me? Just ask Bogie.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)strawman: You seem to have forgotten what you were trying to disprove: that semi-auto pistols were common among civilians in the pre-war and immediate postwar years. Not as popular as revolvers, of course, but far more popular than you contend.
Semi auto pistols were uncommon amongst civilians during pre wwII years, several states even banned them post 1934 nat firearms act. They could've been deemed 'more popular' in the event than my posts inferred tho, you get half a point.
What I had written, emph added: To the military, semi-auto pistols & rifles were readily available, but not to the general public; whether due to price or disinterest dunno (likely availability), but the semi - auto gun craze didn't start until a while after wwII, & then gained steam thru the 60's & 70's & is what in good part contributed to the rise in violent crime rate & murder rate in the 80's & 90's.
>> People rarely owned semi-autos in the 30's 40's & even 50's since they were still in early stages of development & largely allotted to the military.
I think per capita one semi-auto handgun per 50 americans could be called rare, even one per 40 adults - which doesn't consider multiple semi-autos singly owned, likely around 1 semi-auto handgun OWNER per 100 to 200 Americans. By my 'guesstimates' was the per capita proportion circa wwII, meaning that's the likely high water mark for the previous 45 years.
Re table below, ? refers to an educated guess, also based on the general proportion of 2 longguns to 1 handgun, assuming % held thru those years. If anyone can produce a reputable table, pls do, I couldn't google one up.
Emboldened figures are fairly accurate. One truism was that between ~1964 & ~1976 the national gunstock and the firearms death rate both doubled.
...... population ........... nat gunstock ..... nat handgunstock
1910 ... 92,228,496 ... ~30 - 40 million(?) .......... ~10 mill(?) largely revolvers
1930 .. 123,202,624 .. ~40 - 50 million(?) ......... ~15 mill(?) largely revolvers
1950 .. 161,325,798 .. ~55 million(?) .......... ~15 - 20 mill(?) largely revolvers
1960 .. 189,323,175 .. ~'64, 75 mill .......... ('64) ~25 mill
1970 .. 213,302,031 .. ~'76, 150 mill ........ ('76) ~50 mill
1990 .. 258,709,873 .. ~225 mill ..................... ~75 mill
2000 .. 291,4,906 .. ~250 mill(?) http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h980.html
As we've seen, semi-auto production to 1928 was less than 200,000 from the colt m1911, & I can easily make that 500,000 to include other mftrs, & then to wwII I can tack on another couple million for a plausible guesstimate of 3 million (tho I doubt that much). That would be maybe 3 million semi-autos for ~150 million people, about 1 semi auto per 50 people (per capita).
To the early 1960's total handgun stock was ~25 million, largely revolvers; After the early 60's to early 1990's, handgun stock increased by 50 million to ~75 million total, ~half pistols ~half revolvers (due existing revolver stock; revolver production ~doubled from early 60s - early 90's, while pistol production might've increased 5 to 10fold)
strawman: Not only that, but there were other semi-auto handguns on the market that had little or no military application: Colt 1903s and 1908s, Savage .32s, various small pistols from Browning, FN, Beretta, Walther, Mauser, CZ, Astra, etc.
Most, probably, with lesser production. I think FN at the time was mainly relegated to European marketing, perhaps others like walther, provide some FN semi-autos for sale in US at that time, pls.
wiki: colt 1903 Produced 1903–45; ~570,000 {split mainly between military & civs}
In 40 years of production a total of approximately 420,705 Model 1908 pistols were manufactured, pausing only during 1943–1945 due to the demands of WWII production. http://unblinkingeye.com/Guns/1908Colt/1908colt.html
colt1903 pocket hammer, 1920 prod 3200, 1927 prod 427; http://www.coltautos.com/1903hpd.htm
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)straw man: civilians have always been able to purchase the "milspec" models and have done so by the millions, beginning in the early twentieth century.
I replied: For this to make sense in context, you'd have to show how 'millions' of civilian semi-auto handguns were purchased by civilians prior to wwII, as per what I've written, as well as having displaced revolvers as the civilian handgun of choice. ....
strawman replied: Wrong again, Jimbo. "Have done so" is the present perfect, indicating "up to and including the time of speaking." .. I told you how many have been sold to-date, which is millions, by many manufacturers in many countries..
In context as I noted above, it appeared you were contesting what I had written in some fashion. If all you were doing is noting that millions of semi-autos have been produced, what point exactly were you trying to make, to refute what I was saying?
strawman: Semi-auto pistols were firmly ensconced in the civilian market and in popular culture.
Firmly ensconced in the civilian market? appealing to gangsters & a tiny percentage of American adults?
Firmly esconced in popular culture? I would rather say ensconced in a popular sub-culture, including gangsters & a small maybe one or two percent of americans to wwII - which enhances my argument that semi-autos were firmly ensconced with the rise in violent crime rates.
(circa) National Firearms Act of 1934 .. Not only did states move to restrict fully automatic weapons but also semi-automatic weapons that fire without reloading and with each pull of the trigger. At least seven, and as many as ten states enacted legislation that in various ways sought to restrict such weapons.
Sometimes, fully automatic and semi-automatic weapons were treated in the same way. Rhode Island defined prohibited “machine guns” to include “any weapon which shoots automatically and any weapon which shoots more than twelve shots semi-automatically without reloading.”
A 1927 Massachusetts laws defined prohibited weapons as, “Any gun or small arm caliber designed for rapid fire and operated by a mechanism, or any gun which operates automatically after the first shot has been fire. . . shall be deemed a machine gun.” So Dakota’s 1933 law barred machine guns by defining them as weapons “from which more than five shots or bullets may be rapidly or automatically, or semi-automatically discharged from a magazine.”
In 1933 Virginia outlawed weapons “of any description . . . from which more than seven shots or bullets may be rapidly, or automatically, or semi-automatically discharged from a magazine, by a single function of the firing device, http://time.com/3921663/gun-regulation-history/
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)straw man: You seem to have forgotten what you were trying to disprove: that semi-auto pistols were common among civilians in the pre-war and immediate postwar years. Not as popular as revolvers, of course, but far more popular than you contend.
Actually that was incidental to what I was 'trying to prove', that being that semi-auto handgun production increased dramatically from the early 60s' thru the early 90's, and contributed to the concomitant rise in violent crime rates.
Reviewing population stats & approx. gunstock totals:
...... population ........... nat gunstock ..... nat handgunstock
1960 .. 189,323,175 .. ~'64, 75 mill .......... ('64) ~25 mill
1970 .. 213,302,031 .. ~'76, 150 mill ........ ('76) ~50 mill
1990 .. 258,709,873 .. ~225 mill ..................... ~75 mill
Assuming the proportion of long guns to handguns remained fairly constant at 2 to 1, by the early 1960's there were only ~25 million handguns, largely revolvers, of that perhaps 15 - 20 million revolvers, and maybe 5 - 10 million pistols (not all semi-auto).
By the early 90's there were ~75 million handguns, about half revolvers/half pistols (due existing revolver stock), a guesstimated increase of ~30 million pistols over what existed in the early 60's (with a large margin of error, 35% on the high side).
THAT is what I was 'trying to prove', that the dramatic increase in semi-auto handguns from the early 60's to the early 90's was a contributing factor in the dramatic rise in violent crime rates during that very same time frame.
During the two decades from 1973 to 1993, the types of handguns most frequently produced have changed. Most new handguns are pistols rather than revolvers. Pistol production grew from 28% of the handguns produced in 1973 to 80% in 1993.
The number of large caliber pistols produced annually increased substantially after 1986. Until the mid-1980's, most pistols produced were .22 and .25 caliber models.
Production of .380 caliber and 9 millimeter pistols began to increase substantially in 1987, so that by 1993 they became the most frequently produced pistols. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF
Tack on the production increase in larger caliber size of those semi-auto pistols.
homicide rate doubled from the early 1960s to the late 1970s, increasing from 4.6 per 100,000 U.S. residents in 1962 to 9.7 per 100,000 by 1979.. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)One day it might get up and run. And one day correlation might be directly equivalent to causation.
I might just as easily conjecture that the rise in violent crime rates stimulated demand for semi-auto handguns for self-defense. See how that works?
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)straw man (+ emph): And one day correlation might be directly equivalent to causation.
What you say above is true.
straw man: I might just as easily conjecture that the rise in violent crime rates stimulated demand for semi-auto handguns for self-defense. See how that works?
NRA has been saying this all along, as specious & false as it is.
You didn't refute much.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)You didn't assert much: just a bunch of weak conjecture based on unfounded interpretations of data.
NRA has been saying this all along, as specious & false as it is.
False because ... you want it to be false? It's as valid as your claims: no more, no less.
What you say above is true.
Wrong. Therein lies the essence of your error. Claims of causation carry a greater burden of proof, Jimmy. One day perhaps you'll realize that.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)straw man: False because ... you want it to be false? It's as valid as your claims: no more, no less.
How can a valid statement be as valid as an invalid one? One is correct, the other cannot be.
Gun ownership rates did not increase from the 60's thru the 70's, according to both gallup & gss, in fact home gun ownership rates declined about 10% from 1960 to the end of 1970s. This is enough to dispute your/nra claims that violent crime spurred semi-auto purchase increases during that time.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT7ek7zwo0Ti1CKVl_aFc7thoijAYk0QGYJmV8NQq0aBEO1BkHU
https://www.google.com/search?q=gun+ownership+rate+1960&biw=1440&bih=703&tbm=isch&imgil=Vrz8BNb_nczgiM%253A%253B8R8wx74ZqVbXlM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.intellectualtakeout.org%25252Flibrary%25252Fchart-graph%25252Fgun-ownership-among-americans-1960-2008&source=iu&pf=m&fir=Vrz8BNb_nczgiM%253A%252C8R8wx74ZqVbXlM%252C_&usg=__yaOCh88YsUWP6Bomu-x61MoOp2s%3D&ved=0CC4QyjdqFQoTCOye0fjz-8YCFYcWHgod44YJ6w&ei=tXO2VazwHoeteOONptgO#imgrc=Vrz8BNb_nczgiM%3A&usg=__yaOCh88YsUWP6Bomu-x61MoOp2s%3D
The doubling in both the national gunstock & homicide rate, as well as near tripling the nat violent crime rate between early 1960's & mid 1970's helps refute that guns were bought to defer violent crime, but were likely a contributing cause of it, since the steep rise in violent crime couldn't be foreseen at a concomitant rate with semi-auto (or any) gun purchases. Doesn't work that way. Of course there could've been some influence due violent crime rate rise, but came several years later, & was instigated by emboldening criminally minded which semi-auto possession provided.
Also, if it were true there wouldn't've been semi-auto demand in low populated low violent pro-gun crime states.
straw man (+ emph): And one day correlation might be directly equivalent to causation.
jimmy replied: What you say above is true.
straw man replied: Wrong. Therein lies the essence of your error. Claims of causation carry a greater burden of proof, Jimmy. One day perhaps you'll realize that.
No, as you wrote the axiom in the top sentence it is true; you only want to apply an alternate broad interpretation. It's always been true that correlation might be directly connected to causation, it's just that it's not absolute.
wiki: As with any logical fallacy, identifying that the reasoning behind an argument is flawed does not imply that the resulting conclusion is false. In the instance above, if the trials had found that hormone replacement therapy does in fact have a negative incidence on the likelyhood of coronary heart disease the assumption of causality would have been correct, although the logic behind the assumption would still have been flawed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
2): Correlation does not imply causation is a phrase used in statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other
strawman: You didn't assert much: just a bunch of weak conjecture based on unfounded interpretations of data.
False bravado, there was much substantive value to what I wrote, including that semi-auto firearms were banned in several states in the mid 1930's, & I doubt widely accepted as beneficial whatsoever.
My fault was using the word 'rare' as in occurrence - 'relatively very few americans owned semi-auto handguns' better.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)They're both conjecture, equally unsupported by raw data. Show me direct causality, Jimmy. It's the missing ingredient. Your numerical mumbo-jumbo proves nothing.
So did semi-auto purchases increase during that period, or didn't they? You can't have it both ways, Jimmy.
Your pretense to objectivity gets more transparent with every post.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)I wrote: Gun ownership rates did not increase from the 60's thru the 70's, according to both gallup & gss, in fact home gun ownership rates declined about 10% from 1960 to the end of 1970s. This is enough to dispute your/nra claims that violent crime spurred semi-auto purchase increases during that time.
straw man: So did semi-auto purchases increase during that period, or didn't they? You can't have it both ways, Jimmy
To existing gun owners far more frequently then new ones, which explains the discrepancy.
strawman: hey're both conjecture, equally unsupported by raw data. Show me direct causality, Jimmy. It's the missing ingredient. Your numerical mumbo-jumbo proves nothing
I realized long ago that arguing with GN's was spitting in the wind at best, futile at worst. Tho it's still fun to catch you all in contradictions. You can disbelieve all you want, the correlation between the rise of the semi-auto handgun & larger caliber ammo with increasing violent crime rate is there, & most of us believe there was a contributing causation done by the gun.
To argue with you is futile.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)To existing gun owners far more frequently then new ones, which explains the discrepancy.
Do you have data that supports this interpretation? Or is this just more conjecture?
What's a "GN," Jimmy? I like to know what I'm being called.
And exactly what contradiction have you caught me in?
What larger-caliber ammo is that, Jimmy? Revolvers in .357 Magnum have been around since the '30s, and they are ballistically comparable to the 9MM semi-autos that fueled the boom. If you're talking .45 ACP semi-autos, you're talking mainly 1911s, and their heyday was mostly over except among competition shooters. Or are you thinking of the .50 Desert Eagles? They looked cool in "Boondock Saints" and "The Matrix," but I don't think they're giving Glock sales execs any sleepless nights.
Not only have you not proven causation, you haven't even posited a likely causal scenario. Exactly how do envision that all happening? Just some guys hanging around the corner saying, "Gee, they're coming out with some awesome new handguns -- I think I'll become a violent criminal"?
To argue with anyone is futile if your arguments are so weak.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)strawman: What larger-caliber ammo is that, Jimmy? Revolvers in .357 Magnum have been around since the '30s, and they are ballistically comparable to the 9MM semi-autos that fueled the boom. If you're talking .45 ACP semi-autos, you're talking mainly 1911s, and their heyday was mostly over except among competition shooters.
Not talking about revolvers, but of semi-autos along with increased calibers therein.
As I said, futile. Read my post 28, repeated here:
During the two decades from 1973 to 1993, the types of handguns most frequently produced have changed. Most new handguns are pistols rather than revolvers. Pistol production grew from 28% of the handguns produced in 1973 to 80% in 1993.
The number of large caliber pistols produced annually increased substantially after 1986. Until the mid-1980's, most pistols produced were .22 and .25 caliber models.
Production of .380 caliber and 9 millimeter pistols began to increase substantially in 1987, so that by 1993 they became the most frequently produced pistols. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF
violent crime rate ..... murder rate
1964 ... 190 ............ 4.9 -nat gunstock doubled by ~1975, as did murder rate
1973 ... 417 .............. 9.4
1980 ... 597 ............. 10.2
1985 ... 557 ............... 8.0
1987 ... 610 ............... 8.3 see above paragraph
1988 ... 637 ............... 8.4
1989 ... 663 ............... 8.7
1990 ... 732 ............... 9.4
1991 ... 758 ............... 9.8
1992 ... 757 ............... 9.3 Gun ownership rates dramatically fall ~35% thru 2000
1993.... 747 ............... 9.5
2000 ... 506 ............... 5.5 http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)So your contention is that the increased production of larger-caliber semi-autos caused an increase in violent crime, even though larger caliber revolvers had been available for quite some time? How does that work? And even though "most" pistols produced before 1986 were smaller calibers, I'd be interested in some figures, including how many were actually .45 ACP, e.g. the 1911.
Are proposing that "nat gunstock" and "gun ownership rates" are the same thing? It doesn't sound kosher to me. The former is the total number of guns in circulation, while the latter is the proportional headcount of gun owners. You appear to be having trouble even establishing legitimate correlations, much less proving causation.
Still scrupulously avoiding any mention of how your hypothetical causal connection works, I see. Not surprising.
OakCliffDem
(1,274 posts)I will try not to let it happen again
ileus
(15,396 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)And thanked Skinner for his guidance in GD. I am glad the hosts agree with his guidance and the GD SOP. You are probably right it might be better there. Thanks for the suggestion.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)The hundreds of meta-posts you have made whining about DU belong in ATA, where they don't muck up the forums.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Distracting the group. As you are not a host to this group, I could really care less for your advice.
Thanks for answering so it must not be too meta for you though.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Likewise
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)Poughkeepsie: Eleanor Roosevelt’s pistol offers a fresh take on the ongoing debate over the rights of gun owners
She did own a revolver, which trumps a musquette, but hardly today's glock. And would any self perspecting GN today, keep a glock unloaded? Carrying a concealed unloaded pistol (if so), e was no gun moll for j edgar h.
Scharf implies that Roosevelt preferred her weapon unloaded but is unspecific as to whether ... Early in Franklin Roosevelt’s {gubernatorial} political career, Secret Service bodyguards encouraged Eleanor to carry a revolver {,}and her chauffeur from the State Police provided instruction on how to properly shoot it. After her husband’s passing Eleanor moved to New York City where following multiple death threats, she applied for and got a concealed weapons permit.
.. While continuing to be active in politics, both foreign and domestic; near the end of her life Eleanor Roosevelt determined to go on a lecture tour against segregation in Southern states. The usually hostile FBI warned of a $25,000 reward put out by the Ku Klux Klan for her assassination; but in 1958 at age seventy-four, Roosevelt made the journey driving alone, with only her handgun for protection http://www.americangunculturereport.com/roosevelt.html
gun guru volukh: the Secret Service gave her the gun in 1933, when she insisted on traveling on her own without the agents. So the gun would be whatever the Secret Service was carrying in 1933.http://volokh.com/2011/01/11/bleg-on-eleanor-and-theodore-roosevelt-carry-handguns/
her husband, f: Like health care, social security, and so many other issues central to the Democratic agenda, the party’s support for gun control stems from Franklin D. Roosevelt. For most of American history, regulation of guns was a matter of state law. State-level regulation, however, came under tremendous pressure during the 1920s and 30s, when Prohibition-era gangsters like Al Capone overwhelmed local police resources and traveling desperadoes like Bonnie and Clyde easily escaped capture by racing across state lines. FDR promoted a “New Deal for Crime,” which, like his other New Deal policies, involved expanding the role of the federal government in serving the people.
Roosevelt’s original proposal for what would become the National Firearms Act of 1934, the first federal gun control law, sought to tax all firearms and establish a national registry of guns. When gun owners objected, Congress scaled down FDR’s proposal to allow only for a restrictive tax on machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, which were thought to be gangster weapons with no usefulness for self-defense.. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/111266/franklin-roosevelt-father-gun-control
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
Eleanor obtained a concealed-carry because she was threatened, and feared for her life. Makes perfect sense. I betcha she would not begrudge others of that right, either.
Judging from the ubiquitous pictures of her shooting, and of the touring car in the background, she had at least one revolver long before "Short Fat Fanny" charted.
Buzz cook
(2,474 posts)Received constant death threats and on more than one occasion in real dangerous situations. In one case she and one other woman drove through part of the deep South to attend a civil rights meeting, if she had been apprehended by clansmen there is little doubt she would have been lynched.
Compare that to the average gunner that buys a gun for self protection. No death threats, no specifically deadly situations, and little chance that they will deliberately go into harms way to help others.
You can't compare Roosevelt in 57 to today, because what she did took real courage.