The antis should be careful what they wish for. The NRA has built its power and influence through compromise and capitulation, and only occasionally holding its ground where it must. If the NRA went away for any reason, what would replace it would be far less congenial in its behavior, and the antis would be highly disappointed in the result.
Yes, because it proved to be a successful and life-saving policy for the Israelis, and makes perfect sense here as part of a comprehensive plan to harden the perimeters of our schools.
What I said was perfectly correct (and essentially used in Econ 101). Are you saying that you aren't able to understand Econ 101?
Both the Missouri study and the Connecticut study are so flawed as to be useless. https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/d...ticut-fell-40-because-of-a-gun-licensing-law/
Students would not only graduate from high school with "an appreciation of firearms" but training in safely coexisting with firearms. As a direct result, with all citizens having a functioning knowledge of firearms, gun accidents would be reduced significantly, and people would be far better equipped to safely and effectively utilize firearms in personal security situations. In times of public crisis or failures of infrastructure, the citizens themselves would be prepared to act as the First Responders. Their two-years would not be about "activities" but about service. Certainly, they could apply for fields within the militia that would carry over for future careers. Yes, it would be mandatory, full-time service; no different from serving in any other military branch. Obviously, as many active duty people pursue education on their off-time, militia members would be able to as well. For those who feel they cannot serve in a military capacity for moral or ethical reasons, they would still be required to serve, but they could be assigned to such disciplines as medical or bureaucratic duties. Having been trained in certain fundamental values as self-reliance and discipline, many inner city youths who might have gravitated to gang or other criminal activity might instead choose to continue their service in the active-duty military upon the completion of their 2 year service requirement, or other constructive vocations; thus reducing criminal activity. For those who choose criminal endeavors, they will face a supposed victim pool much less vulnerable to victimization as more and more people come out of militia training better equipped to defend themselves from crime... which does not make them "vigilantes" but simply self-reliant citizens.
I'm saying I don't give a damn about Econ 101. I'm talking about Constitutional rights and freedoms, period.
I'd say that depends on the teacher. I don't believe all teachers should be compelled to be armed; but I have no problem at all for a teacher who wants to volunteer for advanced training to facilitate school security.
More doubletalk bovine excrement. Our Founders believed that protecting individual rights and freedoms was more important than any other factor; so take your econometric garbage and cram it where the sun don't shine. Trying to use "economics" as a rationale to curtail personal liberties and freedom is offensive in the extreme to anyone lacking the authoritarian bent you are so clearly afflicted with. A person exercising their rights responsibly imposes no costs on anyone. Instead, they are less likely to place a drain on public resources as they do not require as much in the way of public services for police protection and they are far less likely to burden the medical services being treated for wounds they won't receive because they're equipped to protect themselves from harm. They might even act to protect others, as does happen on a regular basis in this country.
So claims the person who fabricated a study about defensive gun use. Not many people on both sides of the debate have stooped to John Lott's level of dishonesty in my opinion.
Economics played no part in the actions of Stephen Paddock. Nor did economics play any part in the actions of Nikolas Cruz, Adam Lanza, or countless other school shooters.
Prohibited individuals are the ones who are targeted by a PTP system. Your post makes about as much sense as objecting that requiring people to obtain a driver's license is predicated on the notion that responsible, skilled drivers are the ones causing most of the accidents. That doesn't even being to make sense. You might have a point if Missouri were an isolated case. But it isn't. We keep seeing the same pattern over and over again. I don't think you and others realize that because you don't spend much time reading the research on the issue.
Background checks are supposed to weed out prohibited persons PTP turn a right I to a privilege. When SCOTUS decides that the 2A is a collective right a PTP would be acceptable. The homicide rate was increasing at a faster rate prior to the change in law. If the law affected anything it would have slowed down the increase.
You're not making sense on two levels. First, its pro-gunner research that insists on applying economics (i.e. deterrence theory). Second, by ignoring externalities you are stating that your constitution insists on coercion. Weird response either way.
If an individual is a prohibited person, they cannot legally purchase a firearm under any circumstances, because their name has been entered into the national instant check system, due to being convicted in a court of law for committing a prohibitive criminal offense. A permit to purchase a firearm is entirely unnecessary, as they cannot pass the federally mandated background check that precedes all firearm purchases from federally licensed firearm dealers. None of which goes to actually prove conclusively that this supposed increase was carried out by individuals who could legally own firearms, as opposed to those who cannot legally possess firearms, but do so regardless. It is all supposition and speculation that the increase in violence was committed by legal firearm owners, but it is not proof. Nor is there anything presented to show just when the first signs of the increasing level of violence and homicide actually began occurring, to show that it was contingent upon the change in firearm acquisition laws.
How does economics factor into a violent individual concluding that they do not wish to face someone who can potentially fight back and kill them where they stand?
Economics does not assume zero crime is possible (don't you know your pro-gunner research?). It does, however, acknowledge the social costs from the additional crime created by your preferences.
And in the ranks of gun rights organizations, the NRA is a moderate. GOA (Gun Owners of America) makes the NRA look like the Brady Organization.
Just Arthur Kellermann. Or Josh Sugarmann. The list of anti-gun liars goes on... and I suspect most of the accusations against Lott won't survive nonbiased analysis.
I know some teachers who are former police and military. I just ran into a superintendent friend who is former military and police. He works the gun counter part time at Cabela’s since he retired last year.
