Maine most peaceful US state

[Nicky]

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/04/survey-maine-ranked-most-peaceful-state-louisiana-last/1?csp=hf#.UXLr_b2LWnn

 

 

“Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.”
Article 1, Section 16. Maine Constitution

 

They require no permits to buy, no registration or license to own a firearm. They have the second highest gun ownership rate in the nation.

 

I guess there's no connection between crime rates and gun control after all.

Edited April 20, 2013 by Nicky

[Craig24]

Sam Harris, who has what at first glance seems to be a moderate view on guns has this to say:

Like most gun owners, I understand the ethical importance of guns and cannot honestly wish for a world without them. I suspect that sentiment will shock many readers. Wouldn’t any decent person wish for a world without guns? In my view, only someone who doesn’t understand violence could wish for such a world. A world without guns is one in which the most aggressive men can do more or less anything they want. It is a world in which a man with a knife can rape and murder a woman in the presence of a dozen witnesses, and none will find the courage to intervene. There have been cases of prison guards (who generally do not carry guns) helplessly standing by as one of their own was stabbed to death by a lone prisoner armed with an improvised blade. The hesitation of bystanders in these situations makes perfect sense—and “diffusion of responsibility” has little to do with it. The fantasies of many martial artists aside, to go unarmed against a person with a knife is to put oneself in very real peril, regardless of one’s training. The same can be said of attacks involving multiple assailants. A world without guns is a world in which no man, not even a member of Seal Team Six, can reasonably expect to prevail over more than one determined attacker at a time. A world without guns, therefore, is one in which the advantages of youth, size, strength, aggression, and sheer numbers are almost always decisive. Who could be nostalgic for such a world?

 

 

[softwareNerd]

... has this to say:

I think that's the sentiment that got guns the nickname "equalizer".

[Devil's Advocate]

"Survey: Maine ranked 'most peaceful' state; Louisiana last"

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/04/survey-maine-ranked-most-peaceful-state-louisiana-last/1?csp=hf#.UXLr_b2LWnn

 

With the exception of Title II Weapons*, gun laws** for Maine are the same as Louisana.  Does this imply that unregulated possession and use of rocket launchers is primarily responsible for Maine's state of peace?

--

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons

**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state#Maine

 

“Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.”
Article 1, Section 16. Maine Constitution

Louisiana:  The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.  Art. I, § 11 (enacted 1974).

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

 

Does this imply that unregulated concealment of weapons is primarily responsible for Maine's state of peace?

 

They require no permits to buy, no registration or license to own a firearm. They have the second highest gun ownership rate in the nation.

2nd highest according to what?  According to this survey, there are quite a few states with higher gun ownership, including Louisiana.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html

 

I guess there's no connection between crime rates and gun control after all.

Is there some argument being presented here??

Edited July 8, 2013 by Devil's Advocate

[FeatherFall]

Devil's Advocate, your post implies that you think Nicky believes that gun laws are the only reason for differences in crime. I think you'd both probably agree with me that gun laws are only one contributing factor. I can think of some differences between the states that may also be important.

1) The climate: Are different types of crime committed in different climates? Does hot weather reduce or increase the likelihood of criminal activity?

 

2) Population density: Do cramped conditions contribute to higher crime rates? Louisiana is twice as dense as Maine. The New Orleans metropolitan area's population density compares similarly to that of Portland, Maine's largest metropolitan area.

 

3) Timing of gun laws: Have the laws of each state been in effect for similar lengths of time?

 

It's also important to double check if the two states truly have similar gun legislation. Louisiana state laws preempt local laws passed after 1985. Are there laws on the books in large metropolitan areas that treat large sections of Louisiana differently than Maine? Consider the period prior to 2013 (the year of a recent constitutional amendment that fundamentally changed gun laws in Louisiana).

Edited July 10, 2013 by FeatherFall

[Nicky]

Devil's Advocate, your post implies that you think Nicky believes that gun laws are the only reason for differences in crime. I think you'd both probably agree with me that gun laws are only one contributing factor.

I meant exactly what I said: that there is no significant connection between crime rates and gun control. There are peaceful communities with both lax gun laws (most of the Northern US, Switzerland, etc.) and strict gun laws (Japan, a lot of Western Europe), and there are also high crime communities with both kinds of gun laws.

The existence of just one large region with lax gun laws and low crime (like the Northern US) proves that gun ownership doesn't cause crimes, and more importantly, the existence of cities like Chicago, and countries like Brazil and Venezuela, proves that gun control doesn't prevent them.

In other words, let's treat gun control for what it is: a loss of freedom, unconnected to crime.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Nicky

[Devil's Advocate]

Devil's Advocate, your post implies that you think Nicky believes that gun laws are the only reason for differences in crime. I think you'd both probably agree with me that gun laws are only one contributing factor. I can think of some differences between the states that may also be important.

1) The climate: Are different types of crime committed in different climates? Does hot weather reduce or increase the likelihood of criminal activity?

 

2) Population density: Do cramped conditions contribute to higher crime rates? Louisiana is twice as dense as Maine. The New Orleans metropolitan area's population density compares similarly to that of Portland, Maine's largest metropolitan area.

 

3) Timing of gun laws: Have the laws of each state been in effect for similar lengths of time?

 

It's also important to double check if the two states truly have similar gun legislation. Louisiana state laws preempt local laws passed after 1985. Are there laws on the books in large metropolitan areas that treat large sections of Louisiana differently than Maine? Consider the period prior to 2013 (the year of a recent constitutional amendment that fundamentally changed gun laws in Louisiana).

I took Nicky's initial post, and focus on Maine, as advocacy for deregulation of gun ownership;  which he confirms in his response to you.  I see gun regulation as a necessary part of securing a monopoly on the use of force, and agree with you that other factors contribute to variations in crime rates across the country.

[softwareNerd]

I took Nicky's initial post, and focus on Maine, as advocacy for deregulation of gun ownership;  which he confirms in his response to you.  I see gun regulation as a necessary part of securing a monopoly on the use of force, and agree with you that other factors contribute to variations in crime rates across the country.

 

Do you agree with his essential point though: i.e. that gun ownership is not an important factor when it comes to crime rates. 

[Devil's Advocate]

Do you agree with his essential point though: i.e. that gun ownership is not an important factor when it comes to crime rates. 

I don't know how important it is compared to other factors of the kind listed by FeatherFall.  It's certainly a factor when it comes to criminals who rely on guns to commit crime, and it's certainly a factor when tracing a gun used in a crime back to it's original owner.  I don't agree that, gun control is a loss of freedom, unconnected to crime.

[aleph_1]

The recent shooting at Lone Star College-North Harris near Houston occurred on a college campus where the State of Texas has outlawed the possession of guns. The law was apparently no deterrent to the shooter, who was retaliating for his gang being disrespected. What use are such laws? Whom do they protect? Do such laws leave women without the right to protect themselves from rape while walking on campus at night? These gun restrictions only protect evil people. Good people are left defenseless.

[Devil's Advocate]

For clarity, my position isn't against the 2nd Amendment.  I concede that regulation cannot prevent criminals from acquiring guns and therefore ought not prevent law abiding citizens from bearing arms.  However a monopoly on the use of force has a legitimate need to track the weaponry of individuals within its domain, does it not??  Therefore some regulation is not only appropriate, but necessary to the task of providing security.

[Nicky]

Objectivism is against the government's monopoly on the use of force. It merely advocates for the government's monopoly on the use of retaliatory force.

[Devil's Advocate]

Objectivism is against the government's monopoly on the use of force. It merely advocates for the government's monopoly on the use of retaliatory force.

"A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws." ~ ARL, Government

 

"The difference between political power and any other kind of social “power,” between a government and any private organization, is the fact that a government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force. This distinction is so important and so seldom recognized today that I must urge you to keep it in mind. Let me repeat it: a government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force." ~ ARL, Government

 

In the 2nd quote, government's use of physical force is presumed to be retaliatory I suppose.  In any case, I fail to see how government's role as the enforcer of objective law impedes individual freedom by tracking the weaponry of individuals within its domain.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Devil's Advocate