TexasCHLforum.com

Obviously these two economists have no ability to pass legislation of any kind, but this kind of thing is out there in the zeitgeist and many sheeple are reading it.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/12/c ... tml?hpt=C1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Incidentally, it is important that this time the ban go further than the 1994 assault weapons ban. That law had a giant loophole -- it grandfathered all existing large-capacity magazines, and there were millions in circulation at the time in the United States (or that could be imported from Eastern Europe). This time, we would hope for a flat ban on transfer or possession, such as the one that exists, say, in New York state.

Also interesting how they twist John Lott's words to suggest that how many bullets a gun holds is unimportant to self defense, because (as Lott has stated) most crimes are deterred by a potential victim merely brandishing a gun (no shots fired). Heck, by that logic, perhaps we just don't need bullets at all so might as well go ahead and ban all ammo because all you really need to do is show a gun - there's never a need to actually shoot again to stop an attack.

Incidentally, it is important that this time the ban go further than the 1994 assault weapons ban. That law had a giant loophole -- it grandfathered all existing large-capacity magazines, and there were millions in circulation at the time in the United States (or that could be imported from Eastern Europe). This time, we would hope for a flat ban on transfer or possession, such as the one that exists, say, in New York state.

I always like to throw the argument back at people who think high capacity magazines should be banned. I ask them, "Why 10 rounds?" They look at me puzzled. Then I ask them, "Why not 6, or 4? Why not 1? Who decided 10 was enough? What was the science used to determine that 10 was just the right amount?"

I'm not sure where the quote is, but Charles Krauthammer once pointed out that conditioning people that a 10-round magazine limit is an excellent precursor to conditioning people that guns should be confiscated and tightly controlled. The whole point is to get the general populace to accept "concessions of safety" and it then becomes easy to further extend those concessions.

you what is so preposterous ? it only takes ONE bullet to kill, so why not just make all guns only shoot one bullet


so my magazine that holds 16 for my xd is just there for balance.

one day soon I hope the powers that be will mandate that every legal citizen has to be armed and proficient.
then the bad guys/girls might be inclined to leave for easier hunting grounds.


and since when do economist think they know gun control?

powerboatr wrote:you what is so preposterous ? it only takes ONE bullet to kill, so why not just make all guns only shoot one bullet


so my magazine that holds 16 for my xd is just there for balance.

one day soon I hope the powers that be will mandate that every legal citizen has to be armed and proficient.
then the bad guys/girls might be inclined to leave for easier hunting grounds.


and since when do economist think they know gun control?

http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
...Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition.

powerboatr wrote:and since when do economist think they know gun control?

uh, careful there. John Lott is an economist.

All current huh? So they're advocating confiscation? Good luck with that.

I'm getting responses to my comment posts, where people don't believe there's ever 4 or 5 home invaders/robbers/gang members all at once ... I've been in a 5-armed-man-robbery ... here's a 4 or 5 guy invasion, and it isn't that uncommon ...
http://www.myharlingennews.com/?p=17278" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I'm amazed ,,, do Democrat TV stations not have the NEWS? Is everyone on satellite TV not watching the news, just sports or movies? I'm baffled at people's lack of knowledge.

One hunter said he owns guns, you only need single shot ones for hunting, ban autos and mags, they are just for killing people, not defense ... I posted that home invasion where homeowner used AK-47 to defend himself.

austinrealtor wrote:

powerboatr wrote:and since when do economist think they know gun control?

uh, careful there. John Lott is an economist.

Actually, economic theories can, with substantial validity, be applied to many things other than "financially" related activities.

"Supply and demand" is a very simple yet very powerful tool for describing (and predicting) how people will react to changes in their "environment". "Environment" in this case meaning more generally "things that affect their lives and livelihood" such as laws, taxes, personal freedoms, etc.

austinrealtor wrote:Obviously these two economists have no ability to pass legislation of any kind, but this kind of thing is out there in the zeitgeist and many sheeple are reading it.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/12/c ... tml?hpt=C1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Incidentally, it is important that this time the ban go further than the 1994 assault weapons ban. That law had a giant loophole -- it grandfathered all existing large-capacity magazines, and there were millions in circulation at the time in the United States (or that could be imported from Eastern Europe). This time, we would hope for a flat ban on transfer or possession, such as the one that exists, say, in New York state.

Also interesting how they twist John Lott's words to suggest that how many bullets a gun holds is unimportant to self defense, because (as Lott has stated) most crimes are deterred by a potential victim merely brandishing a gun (no shots fired). Heck, by that logic, perhaps we just don't need bullets at all so might as well go ahead and ban all ammo because all you really need to do is show a gun - there's never a need to actually shoot again to stop an attack.

Incidentally, it is important that this time the ban go further than the 1994 assault weapons ban. That law had a giant loophole -- it grandfathered all existing large-capacity magazines, and there were millions in circulation at the time in the United States (or that could be imported from Eastern Europe). This time, we would hope for a flat ban on transfer or possession, such as the one that exists, say, in New York state.

Not that the Constitution means that much anymore, but I suspect the reason the previous ban "grandfathered" high capacity magazines is that banning them is essentially confiscation, and the government can't legally take your property without paying for it. I don't image they want to pay for these millions of high capacity mags.

RPB wrote:I'm getting responses to my comment posts, where people don't believe there's ever 4 or 5 home invaders/robbers/gang members all at once ... I've been in a 5-armed-man-robbery ... here's a 4 or 5 guy invasion, and it isn't that uncommon ...
http://www.myharlingennews.com/?p=17278" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I'm amazed ,,, do Democrat TV stations not have the NEWS? Is everyone on satellite TV not watching the news, just sports or movies? I'm baffled at people's lack of knowledge.

One hunter said he owns guns, you only need single shot ones for hunting, ban autos and mags, they are just for killing people, not defense ... I posted that home invasion where homeowner used AK-47 to defend himself.

Not that there can't be gun owners as stupid as the hunter you cite, but anyone can say they're a hunter that supports xyz. If this guy really is a hunter, and he thinks you can defend yourself from thugs without the possibility of killing them, maybe he is too stupid to be allowed to own a gun. But really, this kind of emotive nonsense is what you hear from idiot liberals who have never owned a gun or had to defend themselves from violence, so I'm inclined to believe that what you have is liberal pretending to be a hunter.

VMI77 wrote:Not that the Constitution means that much anymore, but I suspect the reason the previous ban "grandfathered" high capacity magazines is that banning them is essentially confiscation, and the government can't legally take your property without paying for it. I don't image they want to pay for these millions of high capacity mags.

At the risk of sounding like an anti-government nut, which I am not and which is NOT my intention, I think a bigger fear that would prevent confiscation is the actual physical confrontation of "give me your contraband" .... not only would MANY armed citizens resist this, many paid police and even soldiers would likely refuse to carry out such confiscation orders. It's one thing to raid Ruby Ridge or Mount Carmel (again, just citing often used examples not intending to start anything) it's another thing to mount a nationwide "turn in your stuff" campaign. Even pseudo-voluntary 'turn in your mags" campaign with a threat of criminal charges for failure to comply could bring a rash of violent resistance from some folks.

Again (third time couching this as it is a very touchy subject) not condoning anything, just saying it's a thought I'm sure has run through the heads of even the most ardent gun grabbers, who seem more intent to "starve us out" by denying new supplies of things like magazines until over time it renders all our guns useless, than starting a nationwide law enforcement nightmare of confrontation and confiscation.

RoyGBiv wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:

powerboatr wrote:and since when do economist think they know gun control?

uh, careful there. John Lott is an economist.

Actually, economic theories can, with substantial validity, be applied to many things other than "financially" related activities.

"Supply and demand" is a very simple yet very powerful tool for describing (and predicting) how people will react to changes in their "environment". "Environment" in this case meaning more generally "things that affect their lives and livelihood" such as laws, taxes, personal freedoms, etc.

The great economist, Ludwig von Mises, title his magnum opus Human Action since all actions are based in economic principles. Or more correctly, economic principles are based in humanity.

powerboatr wrote:you what is so preposterous ? it only takes ONE bullet to kill, so why not just make all guns only shoot one bullet


so my magazine that holds 16 for my xd is just there for balance.

one day soon I hope the powers that be will mandate that every legal citizen has to be armed and proficient.
then the bad guys/girls might be inclined to leave for easier hunting grounds.


and since when do economist think they know gun control?

More specifically, John Lott is an econometrician, that is, an economist who is highly trained in the statistical analysis of data. I daresay that he knows more about statistics than most of the criminalogists and sociologists who pontificate about the need for more restrictions and definitely knows more about the statistical analysis of data than the lawyers and politicians and TV pundits.

The statistical methods that Lott used are not limited to the analysis of economic data. They work equally well with other data. The only difference is the source of the data--not the methods used in the analysis.

By the way, I expect Dr. Lott to very quickly publish a column decrying the use that has been made of his results and explaining why the conclusion that the gun grabbers are trying to draw is a misuse of his results and not valid.

One hunter said he owns guns, you only need single shot ones for hunting, ban autos and mags, they are just for killing people, not defense ... I posted that home invasion where homeowner used AK-47 to defend himself.

Hunters have bag limits. The victims of criminal attacks don't.