In the book Buckeye Blood, Ohio at Gettysburg, the author Richard Baumgartner talks about the prejudice against the German immigrants prior to the Civil War. He states “That same year (1855) a band of Cincinnati nativists marched to attack one of the city’s German enclaves, but was met by gunfire and barricades thrown up in the streets.” It intrigued me how an armed population defended itself, and how this contrasts to the 1928 attack on the unarmed black population of Tulsa, Oklahoma. I have been unable to find out anything more about the Cincinnati incident. If anyone has any information on it, please let me know.
Thanks,
Support The Forums:
The forums have been hosted for some time now out of my pocket. We are coming up on the annual domain renewal for ohioccwforums.org and I pay roughly $20/month to keep the forums online. I do this to maintain the long-standing history of discussions here indexed in Google, and so that people have a place to discuss this topic outside of modern social media censorship. If you enjoy the forums and you'd like to help offset the cost, please consider a venmo donation hereHistorical Use of Firearms for Defense - Cincinnati
Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators
-
afit_ed
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 1:18 pm
- Location: Beavercreek
-
jeep45238
- Posts: 5930
- Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 10:29 am
- Location: SW Ohio
- Contact:
About that particularly, no. But I will share with you my research paper on gun control with you, and if you give me your e-mail send you the excel files on Cincinnati's past 15 years of crime data and my compilation of guns produced, ohio/cincinnati/usa crime rates and the inflation rate.
Michael Flitcraft
Winslow
2-7-2007
Gun Control's Effect On Crime In America
Gun control has been around for hundreds of years in varying forms in the United States. From the beginning roots of our fledgling country with the world power Britain, to the control of slaves in Southern agriculture, to the modern world we live in today, it has been a hotly debated topic ever since the gunsmith trade was invented. In today's world there are strong opinions on both sides of the topic, with both seeming to have extremely strong evidence to support their opinion. I can recall at least a dozen gun control lobbyist groups in America alone, although there are probably at least double that number in existence today. Why is there such a controversy around this subject? America is one of the most violent industrialized countries in the world, so what can be done to reduce the crime rate? The root of issue is not the estimated 223 million guns (as of 1995), but the safety of her citizens (Zawitz 1). Starting with the passing of the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Government began to actively regulate and restrict gun ownership amongst Americans ("Evolution of ATF"). This was essentially the start of the modern debate: Does gun control reduce crime, how should the second amendment to the United States Constitution be interpreted, and what rights do civilian gun owners possess?
As stated, the root of gun control is the attempt to curb the crime rate. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) started keeping records of the number
of guns produced in 1998, and publishes a yearly report on the number of guns that are made for the domestic market and for export. However, it is voluntary to do so by the gun manufacturers, and up to 25% of makers don't give such information to the ATF. Combined with previous existing firearms, one can only estimate the number of functional firearms in America ("Annual Firearms manufacturing And Export Report"). Many people assume that since a gun is a deadly weapon, producing more of them will result in a greater number of the guns to fall into criminal's hands. Upon inspection of the second attached graph, the inflation rate is fairly consistent with the crime rate. This trend has been consistent for over 40 years, with the crime rate following the inflation rate. In the author's opinion, lobbyist groups should focus upon the economy more than legislation. One such prominent, high publicity gun control lobbyist group is the Brady Campaign. The group succeeded in getting a bill passed in 1993 that marginally affected the national crime rate. Referencing to the first graph attached to the works cited it is plainly obvious that the crime rate begins to drop around the year 1993 hinting that the bill was effective. However, upon closer inspection, the crime rate actually started decreasing a year earlier. The national and state crime data from 1960 show when a major gun control bill passed up until 1991 crime rates increased. After the passage of The Firearms Owner's Protection Act (FOPA) in 1986 the crime rate began to decrease (Criminal Victimization). Crime averaged a 5.5% gain from 1960-1985, while lowering .05% after 1986 when the law FOPA was passed. Localities have also noticed a decline in crime rates with the relaxed gun control according to Cincinnati Police crime data from the last 15 years (Byers). It seems that many people forget that criminals break the law
by practicing their profession. During a massacre in Columbine, CO in 1994, two students murdered 12 people and wounded 24 others before committing suicide. During this act, they broke laws against trespassing, arson, unsafe transportation of a firearm, ownership of a handgun by a minor, illegal straw purchases, possession of a banned weapon, carrying weapons onto school grounds, aggravated assault, attempted murder, and murder at a minimum. How would additional laws protect the public if people are willing to break the law? Instead, gun control does the opposite, stripping law abiding citizens from the ability to have a means of effective personal defense.
One of the other passionately debated portions of this topic is how the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution interpreted and applied. The second amendment states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" (Constitution). From past experiences, I can state with confidence that many pro-gun control people emphasize that the second amendment applies to militias only. Well, militias are groups of citizens that are subject to call of military duty ("Militia" 537). In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has only heard three cases directly dealing with the second amendment. The Supreme Court ruled in 1876 that the federal government can't infringe upon the second amendment, and in 1886 ruled that the states can't infringe upon it as well. In a landmark case, U.S. vs. Miller in 1939 the courts ruled that the possession of military style weapons are protected since "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves" (FindLaw). Although the second amendment's definitions of militia and keep and bear arms have never been definitively set by any
court, precedents set forth by the judgment of the Supreme Court in America points that although the government can regulate within reason the ownership (defined as high risk individuals), the right of individuals to own firearms of any style can not be infringed upon by either state or federal governments.
After examining the precedents made by the U.S. Supreme Court over the interpretation of the second amendment, the next question commonly debated is what rights gun owners themselves have? There is the right of ownership, as a firearm is property. This includes any firearms that are available to civilians including machine guns with the proper paperwork. Most firearms that will be purchased don't require more than a 15 minute FBI background check and two pieces of paperwork. Although this right of ownership isn't written, it goes without saying that if a person owns a piece of property, they will eventually use it. The method of use does vary in legality, however. Using the weapon to commit a crime is obviously illegal. To carry the weapon on one's person is also illegal without the proper permit. To simply show the firearm to end an argument or scare off the attacker is also illegal. However, the use of a firearm at a designated target range, and in self-defense is legal.
There are approximately 353 civilians for every police officer to protect (BOJS LE Stats and Census Bureau). The city of Cincinnati has an average citywide police response time of about 3.5 minutes for emergency calls, in which time a violent criminal has the ability to inflict massive physical harm or death upon a victim (Cook). I for one, can not see the justification in denying a person's ability to defend their right to life to calm the minds of misinformed others.
Works Cited
Zawitz, Marianne. United States. U.S. Department of Justice. Guns Used in Crime: Firearms, Crime, and Criminal Justice. GPO, 1995
"Evolution of ATF." Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Department of Justice. 2 Feb 2007 <http>
United States. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.Annual Firearms manufacturing And Export Report. GPO, 1998-2005
Compiled from ATF firearm production figures in the domestic market, and Department of Justice crime rates for America
Byers, Paul. "Stats Web Page Inquiry." E-mail to author.01 February 2007.
Changes in crime rates of America, Ohio, Cincinnati, Gun Production, and the national inflation rate
United States. U.S. Constitution. Philadelphia: 1787
"Militia."Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary. 7th ed. 1972
"FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment." FindLaw. FindLaw For Legal Professionals. 3 Feb 2007 <http>
United States. Department of Transportation.Fatality Analysis Reporting System. 2001
"Bureau of Justice Statistics Law Enforcement Statistics." Bureau of Justice Statistics. 15 08 2006. U.S. Department of Justice. 7 Feb 2007 <http>
Cook, Tony. "Standing Problems." Cincinnati CityBeat 28 April 2004 07 February 2007 <http>
Michael Flitcraft
Winslow
2-7-2007
Gun Control's Effect On Crime In America
Gun control has been around for hundreds of years in varying forms in the United States. From the beginning roots of our fledgling country with the world power Britain, to the control of slaves in Southern agriculture, to the modern world we live in today, it has been a hotly debated topic ever since the gunsmith trade was invented. In today's world there are strong opinions on both sides of the topic, with both seeming to have extremely strong evidence to support their opinion. I can recall at least a dozen gun control lobbyist groups in America alone, although there are probably at least double that number in existence today. Why is there such a controversy around this subject? America is one of the most violent industrialized countries in the world, so what can be done to reduce the crime rate? The root of issue is not the estimated 223 million guns (as of 1995), but the safety of her citizens (Zawitz 1). Starting with the passing of the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Government began to actively regulate and restrict gun ownership amongst Americans ("Evolution of ATF"). This was essentially the start of the modern debate: Does gun control reduce crime, how should the second amendment to the United States Constitution be interpreted, and what rights do civilian gun owners possess?
As stated, the root of gun control is the attempt to curb the crime rate. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) started keeping records of the number
of guns produced in 1998, and publishes a yearly report on the number of guns that are made for the domestic market and for export. However, it is voluntary to do so by the gun manufacturers, and up to 25% of makers don't give such information to the ATF. Combined with previous existing firearms, one can only estimate the number of functional firearms in America ("Annual Firearms manufacturing And Export Report"). Many people assume that since a gun is a deadly weapon, producing more of them will result in a greater number of the guns to fall into criminal's hands. Upon inspection of the second attached graph, the inflation rate is fairly consistent with the crime rate. This trend has been consistent for over 40 years, with the crime rate following the inflation rate. In the author's opinion, lobbyist groups should focus upon the economy more than legislation. One such prominent, high publicity gun control lobbyist group is the Brady Campaign. The group succeeded in getting a bill passed in 1993 that marginally affected the national crime rate. Referencing to the first graph attached to the works cited it is plainly obvious that the crime rate begins to drop around the year 1993 hinting that the bill was effective. However, upon closer inspection, the crime rate actually started decreasing a year earlier. The national and state crime data from 1960 show when a major gun control bill passed up until 1991 crime rates increased. After the passage of The Firearms Owner's Protection Act (FOPA) in 1986 the crime rate began to decrease (Criminal Victimization). Crime averaged a 5.5% gain from 1960-1985, while lowering .05% after 1986 when the law FOPA was passed. Localities have also noticed a decline in crime rates with the relaxed gun control according to Cincinnati Police crime data from the last 15 years (Byers). It seems that many people forget that criminals break the law
by practicing their profession. During a massacre in Columbine, CO in 1994, two students murdered 12 people and wounded 24 others before committing suicide. During this act, they broke laws against trespassing, arson, unsafe transportation of a firearm, ownership of a handgun by a minor, illegal straw purchases, possession of a banned weapon, carrying weapons onto school grounds, aggravated assault, attempted murder, and murder at a minimum. How would additional laws protect the public if people are willing to break the law? Instead, gun control does the opposite, stripping law abiding citizens from the ability to have a means of effective personal defense.
One of the other passionately debated portions of this topic is how the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution interpreted and applied. The second amendment states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" (Constitution). From past experiences, I can state with confidence that many pro-gun control people emphasize that the second amendment applies to militias only. Well, militias are groups of citizens that are subject to call of military duty ("Militia" 537). In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has only heard three cases directly dealing with the second amendment. The Supreme Court ruled in 1876 that the federal government can't infringe upon the second amendment, and in 1886 ruled that the states can't infringe upon it as well. In a landmark case, U.S. vs. Miller in 1939 the courts ruled that the possession of military style weapons are protected since "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves" (FindLaw). Although the second amendment's definitions of militia and keep and bear arms have never been definitively set by any
court, precedents set forth by the judgment of the Supreme Court in America points that although the government can regulate within reason the ownership (defined as high risk individuals), the right of individuals to own firearms of any style can not be infringed upon by either state or federal governments.
After examining the precedents made by the U.S. Supreme Court over the interpretation of the second amendment, the next question commonly debated is what rights gun owners themselves have? There is the right of ownership, as a firearm is property. This includes any firearms that are available to civilians including machine guns with the proper paperwork. Most firearms that will be purchased don't require more than a 15 minute FBI background check and two pieces of paperwork. Although this right of ownership isn't written, it goes without saying that if a person owns a piece of property, they will eventually use it. The method of use does vary in legality, however. Using the weapon to commit a crime is obviously illegal. To carry the weapon on one's person is also illegal without the proper permit. To simply show the firearm to end an argument or scare off the attacker is also illegal. However, the use of a firearm at a designated target range, and in self-defense is legal.
There are approximately 353 civilians for every police officer to protect (BOJS LE Stats and Census Bureau). The city of Cincinnati has an average citywide police response time of about 3.5 minutes for emergency calls, in which time a violent criminal has the ability to inflict massive physical harm or death upon a victim (Cook). I for one, can not see the justification in denying a person's ability to defend their right to life to calm the minds of misinformed others.
Works Cited
Zawitz, Marianne. United States. U.S. Department of Justice. Guns Used in Crime: Firearms, Crime, and Criminal Justice. GPO, 1995
"Evolution of ATF." Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Department of Justice. 2 Feb 2007 <http>
United States. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.Annual Firearms manufacturing And Export Report. GPO, 1998-2005
Compiled from ATF firearm production figures in the domestic market, and Department of Justice crime rates for America
Byers, Paul. "Stats Web Page Inquiry." E-mail to author.01 February 2007.
Changes in crime rates of America, Ohio, Cincinnati, Gun Production, and the national inflation rate
United States. U.S. Constitution. Philadelphia: 1787
"Militia."Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary. 7th ed. 1972
"FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment." FindLaw. FindLaw For Legal Professionals. 3 Feb 2007 <http>
United States. Department of Transportation.Fatality Analysis Reporting System. 2001
"Bureau of Justice Statistics Law Enforcement Statistics." Bureau of Justice Statistics. 15 08 2006. U.S. Department of Justice. 7 Feb 2007 <http>
Cook, Tony. "Standing Problems." Cincinnati CityBeat 28 April 2004 07 February 2007 <http>
http://shootingfordollars.org Where Firearms and Finances meet.
You can't truly call yourself peaceful unless you are capable of great violence. If you're not capable of violence, you're not peaceful, you're harmless.
-Important distinction
You can't truly call yourself peaceful unless you are capable of great violence. If you're not capable of violence, you're not peaceful, you're harmless.
-Important distinction