Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   The BBQ Pit (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Stupid Gun news of the day... (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=680617)

Gyrate 03-08-2013 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fear Itself (Post 16077632)
Yes, which must be very embarrassing for you. Even drunks can make you look like a moron.

Now let's be fair: he's making himself look like a moron. Being drunk just makes it more fun on our part.

The best part is that this isn't even that rigorous of a gun rights thread and he thinks he's winning it. The debate thread should be fun.

Hentor the Barbarian 03-08-2013 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kable (Post 16077621)
Yes. So are you a teetotaler?

No, because I understand the issue of exposure in the estimation of risk.

That's the point of the reference to the number of accidents that occur within a mile of home.

I don't know how many more times I can try to explain it to you. I don't think you are ever going to grasp this issue. I don't know if your problem is congenital or acquired through interaction with the environment, but in the end it really doesn't matter.

SirGalahad 03-08-2013 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kable (Post 16077744)
No I didn't say that. If I recall correctly Damuri Ajashi, thinks guns should be registered and I believe he does not want them confiscated. Others however want them registered and does want them confiscated. The facts are that if they are registered, they are easier to confiscate. Understand?


I make that leap by seeing how registration of guns led to confiscated in the past, and by many of you gun prohibitionists admitting that various gun control ordinances won't do much in and of themselves, but are just a step in the right direction.


But it's not paranoia. Gun prohibitionists keep showing their hand.

Kable, man, you have a ton of patience. You can't win an argument with folks that don't like guns. It's like arguing with Creationists, in a way ... in the end, it doesn't matter what you say, you won't convince them.

The best you can hope for is to challenge factual inaccuracies and respectfully offer facts of your own. Hopefully, some readers not directly involved in the melee of insults will take away some semblance of information and perspective from both sides of the argument.

Kable 03-08-2013 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian (Post 16077781)
No, because I understand the issue of exposure in the estimation of risk.

Hey, just like me with guns.:)

Kable 03-08-2013 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirGalahad (Post 16077791)
Kable, man, you have a ton of patience. You can't win an argument with folks that don't like guns. It's like arguing with Creationists, in a way ... in the end, it doesn't matter what you say, you won't convince them.

I agree with that. It's exactly like arguing with creationists. It can still be fun though.:)

Gyrate 03-08-2013 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirGalahad (Post 16077791)
Kable, man, you have a ton of patience. You can't win an argument with folks that don't like guns. It's like arguing with Creationists, in a way ... in the end, it doesn't matter what you say, you won't convince them.

Given that gun rights is one of the issues on which several people on this messageboard, myself included, have admitted to having had their position changed due to the presentation of reasoned arguments by the "other side", your assertion is not broadly true.

The problem with Kable isn't that he's a gun rights advocate. The problem is that he's really bad at making an argument and even worse at understanding other people's arguments. ExTank, for example, could come up with a better line of argument about gun rights in his sleep.

Hentor the Barbarian 03-08-2013 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kable (Post 16077807)
Hey, just like me with guns.:)

No. Just a moment ago you indicated that you moved from your house because most accidents occurred within 1 mile of it.

You're a complete moron, and you have no idea whatsoever of the issue of exposure in the evaluation of risk.

steronz 03-08-2013 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gyrate (Post 16077827)
The problem is that he's really bad at making an argument and even worse at understanding other people's arguments.

The problem is that he's a fucking troll, and he has no interest in listening to people's arguments. Several times people have laid out their position on gun control and he completely ignores it because he's incapable of making a coherent argument that doesn't involve trotting out tired pro-gun cliches.

We should really stop feeding him.

FluffyBob 03-08-2013 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Werekoala (Post 15951228)
See, that's what I mean - he wasn't "waving his big gun" in anyone's face or he likely would have been shot (which is why he had the note, I'm sure). Hyperbole, anyone? And just how did the police become involved if someone didn't call them? So yes, I posit that someone(s) in the store saw a big, scary-looking gun and freaked and called the cops on this huge idiot. I posit that everyone in the United States is currently hyper-aware of big, scary looking guns, which may have contributed to the call in the first place. But I also posit that he woundn't have DONE it if it weren't for all the hyperbolic crap that's been spewed on both sides of this "debate". Can we at least agree on that?

You are out of your fucking tree. Openly carrying a serious weapon in a public space like a grocery store is waving it around. It is waving it around like the big insecure dick replacement it is. It is threatening. It doesn't matter if it is a knife, a sword, a broken bottle, a spear or any other weapon designed for injuring others. In my country we would lock this clown up after such an action, and NOBODY would argue the point. Blaming it on media is so far from relevant it isn't even on the map; his actions are what matters and his actions were threatening.

I really don't know what to think of weapons bans and clip restrictions and it doesn't matter because I do not live in the US. In Canada we have lots of guns, and hunting is as big as hockey. I used to have a couple rifles when I lived in the country, lots of people I know have guns, I was talking with my stepsons about taking them to the range for some fun recently. If you are walking around the bush with a rifle during hunting season no one is going to bat an eye, but open carry in a public place is rightfully considered FUCKING ludicrous.

Gyrate 03-08-2013 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steronz (Post 16077870)
Several times people have laid out their position on gun control and he completely ignores it because he's incapable of making a coherent argument that doesn't involve trotting out tired pro-gun cliches.

That's what I mean. The number of times his response has been along the lines of "you said X but I know you meant Y and that's what I'm going to argue against" indicates that he's not really interested in having a serious debate. Whether he is unable to do so or merely unwilling remains to be seen, but we'll see when his shiny new thread debuts in the other forum.

ETA: He actually reminds me of that guy (what was his name? Howdy something?) who hijacked the thread about the theater shooting, claiming that anyone who disagreed with him was clearly a pussy afraid of guns even when several people who work with guns professionally pointed out that opening fire in a dark room full of panicked people was a recipe for disaster. Whatever happened to him? Oh yeah - he got banned for trolling.

Hentor the Barbarian 03-08-2013 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steronz (Post 16077870)
The problem is that he's a fucking troll, and he has no interest in listening to people's arguments. Several times people have laid out their position on gun control and he completely ignores it because he's incapable of making a coherent argument that doesn't involve trotting out tired pro-gun cliches.

We should really stop feeding him.

Given that he just started a thread in Great Debates about alcohol versus firearms, I concur 100% with your assessment. This douchebag is nothing more than a troll.

Gyrate 03-08-2013 09:55 AM

Well, he did say he was going to.

Damuri Ajashi 03-08-2013 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elucidator (Post 16075940)
Found a story about a spider than bit off a kangaroo's head and dragged the body down into a hole, but that's not really relevant. It was a relatively small kangaroo, anyway.

cite?

Quote:

Originally Posted by elucidator (Post 16075976)
I'm afraid you miss my point. For questions of public health, the statistical models are most likely to be closest to epidemiology, that being the scientific field that most closely resembles the issues and questions. Now, if there is a good reason to doubt them, to be suspicious of their results, then that issue should be raised and addressed.

What makes epidemiologists so much better qualified than the criminologists at the DoJ or the researchers at the Congressional research service? Is there some medical aspect to gun violence that makes a medical or science background particularly useful?

If the NIMH wanted to study the relationship between gun ownership and paranoia or between gun control and gun phobia, or something like that, then sure I can see how these outfits are better equipped to handle this type of research but the sort of questions that were being answered could just as easily and effectively been addressed by the FBI.

I don't think anyone is suspicious of the raw data they collect, I think some people object to how they present that data.

Quote:

I suppose we could be reassured if it should turn out that they are only prejudiced and incompetent on this one issue, but that would raise more questions than it would answer. Are gun-grabbers selectively recruited for the CDC? Even those who work in questions of bacteria or vaccination?
Based on my experience with CDC folks, I think the problem might be the perspective that their training has given them. They don't like people dying, and guns are very lethal. The vast majority of people who try to commit suicide survive while the vast majority of those who try to commit suicide with a gun die. Without guns, most of the encounters that we see resulting in homocide by gun would result in a couple of nights at the hospital recovering form a beating or a stabbing. This makes them prejudiced against guns and I think they would totally eliminate guns from society if they could and if they have to start with guns in the hands of legal owners, they are OK with that because it is a net gain in lives saved (largely due to a reduction in successful suicide) even if it means a few extra rapes and robberies.

Quote:

Unless, of course, the people saying this stuff are full of beans. In which case, we need only remember to keep a skeptical ear to them at all times.
I have been skeptical of the NRA since they started getting involved is issues like unions and taxation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kable (Post 16076472)
Booze kills a lot more people than guns in this country, but unlike guns I don't think it helps at all in crime prevention at all. But then we have to ask why you want a prohibition of many guns, but not one of even the highest proof drinks. Your heart seems to bleed both selectively and hypocritically.

They tried that already, it didn't work out so why try again, its not like an assault weapons ban that just needed more time to work. ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kable (Post 16076499)
This homeowner was smart to have more than one gun in his home.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LfLUPDdyfs

Its his own damn fault for being so poor. If he were a responsible upstanding citizen he would have more money and not live in a neighborhood where he has to chain the TV to the wall. Hell, he's probably one of those 47% folks who always vote Democrat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fear Itself (Post 16077414)
Much like gun suicides don't count as gun violence, unintentional drunk driving victims don't count either. Try again.

Gun suicides don't count and neither should people who pull a Thelma and Louise with their car. How many more rapes are you willing to accept to significantly reduce the number of successful suicides?

I see gun suicide a little bit like smoking cigarettes. Kill yourself if you want but don't smoke around me and affect my health.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tequila Party (Post 16077444)
My issue is the conservative view that people should be allowed to own guns without any sort of accountability or responsibility for owning a weapon that was designed for the sole purpose of taking a life. If you fight for the right to own a gun without going through a background check or registration process, then you fight for the right of criminals and the mentally ill to purchase a gun at a trade show or through straw purchases. I think as long as criminals can get their hands on guns then responsible citizens should be allowed to do the same, but I don't think that we need to throw our hands up in defeat and say that gun control measures won't make a significant impact in crime levels and therefore it's a pointless measure to take. As a society we have a compulsion to see immediate and drastic change, and we look for the quick solution to a problem that has taken generations and decades to develop. We need a long term and comprehensive approach to the general problem of people taking lives with any weapon, and just because gun control isn't the Great Solution to the problem doesn't mean it's an invalid or pointless endeavor. It's a step, albeit a small one. A tiny stopgap that might save a few lives while we simultaneously focus on the more pervasive and pressing concern of why people need guns in the first place.

I'm not conservative (at least I don't think so), I am pro-bill of rights and anti- crime. My acid test for whether a rule is good or bad (once it has passed constitutional muster) is if criminals will like the rule or be indifferent.

A criminal will be indifferent to ANY ban on the sale of new guns or accessories. They don't get their guns and magazines at gun shops for the most part.

A criminal WILL be hindered by a licensing and registration requirement. The stock of guns available to criminals will become relatively fixed (or more fixed) and as the police extract guns from this stock through confiscation from criminals, there will be fewer and fewer guns to go around. Eventually, the stock of guns in criminal hands will reach an equilibrium where guns enter the stock through theft or illegal importation and leave the system through police confiscation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gyrate (Post 16077513)
Um, you're the one who made the absolutist statements in the first place.

Just for fairness sake, can we agree that there are some pretty extreme statements being made on both sides of this argument?

Hentor the Barbarian 03-08-2013 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gyrate (Post 16078024)
Well, he did say he was going to.

Oh, I missed that. My bad.

We just did a Great Debate on this back in December-January.

Hentor the Barbarian 03-08-2013 10:15 AM

[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi;16078037]What makes epidemiologists so much better qualified than the criminologists at the DoJ or the researchers at the Congressional research service? Is there some medical aspect to gun violence that makes a medical or science background particularly useful?[quote]You keep saying this. What makes them worse? Or more to the point, why do we want issues researched from only one perspective?
Quote:

Originally Posted by DA
If the NIMH wanted to study the relationship between gun ownership and paranoia or between gun control and gun phobia, or something like that, then sure I can see how these outfits are better equipped to handle this type of research but the sort of questions that were being answered could just as easily and effectively been addressed by the FBI.

How well trained do you think the FBI is in conducting science?

This isn't as categorical an issue as you seem to believe it is. I have a colleague who has appointments in the departments of psychiatry, psychology and epidemiology, and is a senior member of the American Society of Criminology. I have an epidemiologist colleague who used a data set to examine individual and social contextual factors in explaining violence. I used the same data set and similar statistical methods to examine issues related to mental health and other outcomes.

The Kessler National Comorbidity Survey is a large data set collected in a manner typical of most epidemiological research. It provides important information about the prevalence of mental health disorders. Very little can be done with it to explain why some people develop disorders and others don't.

You really need to step back and get some idea of what science and research are, how they are conducted, how multiple methods and perspectives inform the current knowledge base, and how funding impacts ongoing scientific efforts.

Gyrate 03-08-2013 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 16078037)
Just for fairness sake, can we agree that there are some pretty extreme statements being made on both sides of this argument?

Oh sure. The question is whether they're being made by the people being accused of making them.

elucidator 03-08-2013 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 16078037)
...Based on my experience with CDC folks, I think the problem might be the perspective that their training has given them. They don't like people dying, and guns are very lethal. The vast majority of people who try to commit suicide survive while the vast majority of those who try to commit suicide with a gun die. Without guns, most of the encounters that we see resulting in homocide by gun would result in a couple of nights at the hospital recovering form a beating or a stabbing. This makes them prejudiced against guns and I think they would totally eliminate guns from society if they could and if they have to start with guns in the hands of legal owners, they are OK with that because it is a net gain in lives saved (largely due to a reduction in successful suicide) even if it means a few extra rapes and robberies......

You're tying yourself into a knot trying to be logical.

If a scientist has a bias in advance of his study, that is, if he already believes he is right, he is even more motivated to do the study within strict confines of the rules. He wants to collect totally valid data and number crunch it, with every confidence that the data and the analysis will confirm his opinion. After all, if he thinks he's right, why would he want to cheat? If he thinks the facts will bear him out, he wants the facts.

And there is nothing wrong with that so long as he plays by the rules. Because if he cheats, he's gonna get busted for it, this study will be examined quite closely. You can take that to be bank.

And unless I am very much mistaken, the NRA doesn't want a study done by the Justice Dept because they are less prejudiced, they want us to rely on a previous study done by them and set it in stone as the final word on the subject. I am open to correction on that if there is evidence.

IIRC, it wasn't "Yeah, sure, lets do a brand new study with transparency and clarity. But not the CDC, we don't trust them, let Justice do it, and we'll be cool with it." It was more like stopping any study at all, preferring to rely on what they already have, and claiming it would be a waste of money, because they already have the definitive study, and they like the results.

The only problem I can readily see is the problem of defining terms. What is a "defensive gun use"? If you put a sign on your house saying "Break in, and I'll shoot you!", and nobody breaks in, does that count? Would it count if you were bluffing, and didn't really have a gun?

A study like this can only be truly definitive if there is a consensus in advance of the study that the terms are valid and will produce valid results. To my eye, that is the real problem. I say this keeping in mind that I am a mathtard, and had to take Algebra 1 twice to pass with a "D". And I had to cheat.

Lumpy 03-08-2013 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FluffyBob (Post 16077886)
It is waving it around like the big insecure dick replacement it is.

If you ever get mugged, try showing the guy your dick.

P.S. To any and all, it's homicide.

Ca3799 03-08-2013 11:41 AM

"HIGHLAND, N.Y. -- A New York town that began assigning an armed police officer to guard a high school in the wake of the Connecticut massacre has suspended the program after an officer accidentally discharged his pistol in a hallway while classes were in session."

Good thing this was a "good guy" with a gun. If it had been a bad guy, the bullet would have known and landed in some flesh.

steronz 03-08-2013 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ca3799 (Post 16078509)
"HIGHLAND, N.Y. -- A New York town that began assigning an armed police officer to guard a high school in the wake of the Connecticut massacre has suspended the program after an officer accidentally discharged his pistol in a hallway while classes were in session."

Good thing this was a "good guy" with a gun. If it had been a bad guy, the bullet would have known and landed in some flesh.

Look, the occasional firearm-related mishap in our schools is a small price to pay for safer schools...

elucidator 03-08-2013 12:54 PM

I heard that at least six of the children were suffering from constipation, and instantly cured.

steronz 03-08-2013 01:02 PM

Is there anything guns can't do?

elucidator 03-08-2013 01:07 PM

Improve cognitive function. Amply demonstrated herein.

jasg 03-08-2013 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 16078037)
I see gun suicide a little bit like smoking cigarettes. Kill yourself if you want but don't smoke around me and affect my health.

Careful, second hand smoke kills more in the US than drunk driving and guns combined. (Warning CDC study)

Kable may add tobacco to his list of things to ban along with guns - or propose some government agency to control all three...:D

Tequila Party 03-08-2013 01:43 PM

Why do people feel that registration will lead to confiscation? It's a method of accountability, in case a weapon is lost or used in a crime. People have to be just as responsible and accountable for getting perscription medication, from antibiotics to pain killers. It won't keep drug addicts from getting their hands on illegal pills or other substances, but it's a small step to help ensure that pharmacies and doctors aren't out there legally supplying drug addicts with oxy. Yet you don't had people freaking out that the government is going to confiscate medication, medication that could be dangerous in the wrong hands, because the government has a way to track all legally sold perscription medications.

Tequila Party 03-08-2013 01:54 PM

As for my use of the phrase, "the need to have guns in the first place", I wasn't talking about explaining to the government that we need guns for sport, collection, or protection. I was talking more about the fact that people in society need guns as a general idea because we are in some modern concept of mutually assured destruction. Taking away guns from average citizens isn't going to solve the issue of violent crime any more than taking away tanks or RPG's is going to eliminate war. People will still find a way to wage war, and criminals will still find a way to jack my tv or mug me in the street. So if we want to realistically address the issue of gun control or a repeal of the 2nd Amendment to somehow make a debt in gun deaths or violent crime, we can't do that until we've first addressed the root of crime itself. I live in Texas, a state where we love our guns, and until I have some sort of reasonable expectation that somebody breaking into my house won't have a gun, I do think we need to be on a level playing field. I think it's sad I feel this way, however. I used to live in Spain, and I miss living in a society where the worst crime I had to reasonably worry about was a purse snatcher or a gypsy breaking into my car in the middle of the night.

elucidator 03-08-2013 01:56 PM

Well, tough shit, you live in Texas and have the additional worry that an Aggie will molest your cattle.

Lumpy 03-08-2013 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tequila Party (Post 16078954)
Why do people feel that registration will lead to confiscation? It's a method of accountability, in case a weapon is lost or used in a crime.

It isn't that registration will lead to confiscation, but that it can; or to put it another way, confiscation wouldn't have a chance of working unless the government knew where most or all of the guns were, which can't happen as long as there isn't universal registration. Most of the pro-gun people I know think registration in and of itself would be fine as a method of accountability. But people who DO want to confiscate and ban guns have been openly crowing about their intentions for years, and gun bans have in fact followed mandatory registration in some states and in places like Britain. Before going along with universal registration, gun owners would want the same level of assurance that their guns would never ever be banned as we currently have that the Joint Chiefs of Staff won't overthrow the President and establish a junta.

steronz 03-08-2013 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumpy (Post 16079199)
Before going along with universal registration, gun owners would want the same level of assurance that their guns would never ever be banned as we currently have that the Joint Chiefs of Staff won't overthrow the President and establish a junta.

Like, say, a constitutional amendment backed by multiple landmark SCOTUS rulings?

Kable 03-08-2013 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian (Post 16077844)
No. Just a moment ago you indicated that you moved from your house because most accidents occurred within 1 mile of it.

Oh, you mean my current residence? Be more clear. I've lived here for about 10 years.

Quote:

You're a complete moron, and you have no idea whatsoever of the issue of exposure in the evaluation of risk.
No, your a moron. Is high school the best you got, or less. And yes, I think I understand risk pretty well, I played poker for a number of years, consistently won too, which isn't easy. You know risk, reward, probabilities. etc. I got that all down pretty well. If there are any facts you think I have missed, I'd be happy to hear them.

Kable 03-08-2013 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steronz (Post 16079241)
Like, say, a constitutional amendment backed by multiple landmark SCOTUS rulings?

Based on what I've read on the dope, that's not enough.

Lumpy 03-08-2013 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steronz (Post 16079241)
Like, say, a constitutional amendment backed by multiple landmark SCOTUS rulings?

Then why are AWBs and magazine limits still being proposed?

Ca3799 03-08-2013 09:22 PM

"Greg Rodriguez, big-game hunting expert and host of TV's "A Rifleman's Journal," has been shot to death.

Rodriguez was killed near the resort town of West Glacier, Mont., while visiting a local woman, according to an Associated Press report. Police believe the shooter was the woman's husband, who later returned to his home and killed himself. Rodriguez, 43, was married with two children."

Kable 03-08-2013 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ca3799 (Post 16080302)
"Greg Rodriguez, big-game hunting expert and host of TV's "A Rifleman's Journal," has been shot to death.

For some good news: http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/Would-B...195531491.html

Damuri Ajashi 03-08-2013 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian (Post 16078130)
You keep saying this. What makes them worse? Or more to the point, why do we want issues researched from only one perspective?How well trained do you think the FBI is in conducting science?

Yes, I do, but only because of all the caterwauling about the "ban on research into gun violence" when it was just a ban on research by the CDC (and NIH). The NRA was reacting to a perceived bias at the CDC, but what we get are cries that the NRA hates science. Well, the stuff I've seen has been published by the research branch of the DoJ, I think their statistical methods are probably just as good as anyone's, in fact their report is very critical of their own findings and not very supportive of the NRA position, and yet, they weren't shut down. Why is that?

Quote:

This isn't as categorical an issue as you seem to believe it is. I have a colleague who has appointments in the departments of psychiatry, psychology and epidemiology, and is a senior member of the American Society of Criminology. I have an epidemiologist colleague who used a data set to examine individual and social contextual factors in explaining violence. I used the same data set and similar statistical methods to examine issues related to mental health and other outcomes.
I agree that if we are talking about mental health issues, then outfits like the CDC and NIMH are particularly well equipped to study the gun phobia among gun control advocates and the paranoia among gun nuts. But if you want to study the relationship between gun violence and gun ownership, I don't see what special skill the CDC has that the DoJ does not.

Quote:

and how funding impacts ongoing scientific efforts.
I think I understand a little bit how funding affects research, I was exposed to it during the stem cell research debate back in the day. The ban on CDC research into gun violence was political payback for an agency that appeared to enter the political field of battle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by elucidator (Post 16078165)
If a scientist has a bias in advance of his study, that is, if he already believes he is right, he is even more motivated to do the study within strict confines of the rules. He wants to collect totally valid data and number crunch it, with every confidence that the data and the analysis will confirm his opinion. After all, if he thinks he's right, why would he want to cheat? If he thinks the facts will bear him out, he wants the facts.

Or he might be tempted to read the data in the light most favorable to his cause. Try to push the debate in one direction or another.

Quote:

And there is nothing wrong with that so long as he plays by the rules. Because if he cheats, he's gonna get busted for it, this study will be examined quite closely. You can take that to be bank.
And in this case he did get busted and the CDC has been paying the price for the last decade and a half. I don't think they'll make that mistake again.

Quote:

And unless I am very much mistaken, the NRA doesn't want a study done by the Justice Dept because they are less prejudiced, they want us to rely on a previous study done by them and set it in stone as the final word on the subject. I am open to correction on that if there is evidence.

IIRC, it wasn't "Yeah, sure, lets do a brand new study with transparency and clarity. But not the CDC, we don't trust them, let Justice do it, and we'll be cool with it." It was more like stopping any study at all, preferring to rely on what they already have, and claiming it would be a waste of money, because they already have the definitive study, and they like the results.
If that were true then why have we been getting a fairly steady trickle of research from the DoJ and the CRS after the shut down the CDC? And I'm not at all sure that all these studies supported the NRA position on things.

Quote:

The only problem I can readily see is the problem of defining terms. What is a "defensive gun use"? If you put a sign on your house saying "Break in, and I'll shoot you!", and nobody breaks in, does that count? Would it count if you were bluffing, and didn't really have a gun?

A study like this can only be truly definitive if there is a consensus in advance of the study that the terms are valid and will produce valid results. To my eye, that is the real problem. I say this keeping in mind that I am a mathtard, and had to take Algebra 1 twice to pass with a "D". And I had to cheat.
The study was poorly conducted but the DoJ is not prohibited from doing something like it again without the problems. The obvious way (to me) would be to ask first about defensive gun use in your lifetime, then defensive gun use in the last year (people are much more likely to be honest about defensive gun use in the last year if they have already had an opportunity to register their defensive gun uses over their whole lifetime). You can certainly fix the definition problem by using broader definitions in the beginning of the survey and using more exacting definitions later in the survey.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tequila Party (Post 16078954)
Why do people feel that registration will lead to confiscation? It's a method of accountability, in case a weapon is lost or used in a crime. People have to be just as responsible and accountable for getting perscription medication, from antibiotics to pain killers. It won't keep drug addicts from getting their hands on illegal pills or other substances, but it's a small step to help ensure that pharmacies and doctors aren't out there legally supplying drug addicts with oxy. Yet you don't had people freaking out that the government is going to confiscate medication, medication that could be dangerous in the wrong hands, because the government has a way to track all legally sold perscription medications.

Because it has happened in the past. Not only in places like Pol Pot's Cambodia but also in places like California.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tequila Party (Post 16079000)
So if we want to realistically address the issue of gun control or a repeal of the 2nd Amendment to somehow make a debt in gun deaths or violent crime, we can't do that until we've first addressed the root of crime itself.

Or you can pass laws that are designed to disarm criminals rather than law abiding citizens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumpy (Post 16079199)
...and gun bans have in fact followed mandatory registration in some states...

They did this in California.

Quote:

Before going along with universal registration, gun owners would want the same level of assurance that their guns would never ever be banned as we currently have that the Joint Chiefs of Staff won't overthrow the President and establish a junta.
You are asking for a cultural shift in our democracy that will never happen. People WILL try, but they will never succeed, not at the federal level, not in your grandchildren's lifetime.

If this isn't enough for you (and I can see why you would be uneasy), what we can do is have the registration self destruct if they pass a law that would use the registration list as the basis of confiscation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by steronz (Post 16079241)
Like, say, a constitutional amendment backed by multiple landmark SCOTUS rulings?

I agree that gun confiscations generally are unconstitutional but several states have done it and gotten away with it. Noone is afraid they will confiscate ALL the guns, they are afraid, that once the licensing and registration works to disarm the criminal population, they will start disarming the civilian population, little by little until the right to bear arms in the US resembles the right to bear arms in Mexico (where they have banned "military style weapons" which means any revolver larger than a 38 special or pistol larger than a 380, any rifle larger than a 22lr or (if a member of a hunting or shooting club) any shotgun large than 12 ga shotgun.

Mexico also has a constitutional right to keep and bear arms but the meaning has been stripped from the right so that you can only keep certain arms and you can only bear them in your home or at a shooting club. And they have horrible gun violence.

elucidator 03-09-2013 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 16080404)
...I think I understand a little bit how funding affects research, I was exposed to it during the stem cell research debate back in the day. The ban on CDC research into gun violence was political payback for an agency that appeared to enter the political field of battle.....And in this case he did get busted and the CDC has been paying the price for the last decade and a half. I don't think they'll make that mistake again......

Excuse me, but says who? Who says the CDC work was biased and flawed? The NRA?

Besides their discomfort with the results, what is their proof? Does the scientific community and statistical academics wholly agree with that NRA position, roundly condemning the poor work of the CDC? I had not heard this, perhaps you'll clarify

You state this so matter of factly, as if its something that everybody knows and nobody questions, I'm duty bound to question. Says who?

Tequila Party 03-09-2013 12:40 AM

I know California just approved a measure to confiscate legally obtained weapons from people who have since been disqualified from owning such weapons, such as people who landed a criminal record or were declared mentally ill. Imo these ARE measures to keep guns out of the hands of potentially dangerous people. But if a state passes laws arbitrarily confiscating weapons from law abiding and mentally sound citizens, the Supreme Court thus far has upheld a persons's right to bear arms, most recently in the 2010 case of McDonald v Chicago.

Tequila Party 03-09-2013 12:51 AM

As for the correlation between gun violence, restrictive bans on weapons, and the failure of such bans to lower the rate of gun related violence, I often hear people discuss Chicago. They point out that Chicago has had some of the most severe restrictions on gun ownership in the country, yet the rate of violence in that city is one of the highest in the nation. But Chicago is the perfect example of what I've been trying to say all along, that the root of violence can't or shouldn't be measured in terms of who has guns or the measures the local government has taken to restrict gun ownership.

2/3 of the violent crime and gun related deaths in Chicago occur in the poor neighborhoods that have the higest level of people living in poverty, unemployment, and lack of education and resources. It's one of the most segregated cities in the nation. There is a deep social, cultural, and economic divide in that city. So trying to ban people overall from owning assault weapons or other measures to restrict gun ownership doesn't address the disease. It's only trying to address a symptom of a much more serious and pervasive disease, so to speak.

Skip 03-09-2013 06:29 AM

Officer Who Fired Shot In New York High School Suspended
Quote:

A New York town that began assigning an armed police officer to guard a high school in the wake of the Connecticut massacre has suspended the program after an officer accidentally discharged his pistol in a hallway while classes were in session.

Lumpy 03-09-2013 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 16080404)
I agree that gun confiscations generally are unconstitutional but several states have done it and gotten away with it. Noone is afraid they will confiscate ALL the guns, they are afraid, that once the licensing and registration works to disarm the criminal population, they will start disarming the civilian population, little by little until the right to bear arms in the US resembles the right to bear arms in Mexico (where they have banned "military style weapons" which means any revolver larger than a 38 special or pistol larger than a 380, any rifle larger than a 22lr or (if a member of a hunting or shooting club) any shotgun large than 12 ga shotgun.

Mexico also has a constitutional right to keep and bear arms but the meaning has been stripped from the right so that you can only keep certain arms and you can only bear them in your home or at a shooting club. And they have horrible gun violence.

THIS!

Hentor the Barbarian 03-09-2013 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumpy (Post 16080853)
THIS!

Is crazy!

elucidator 03-09-2013 09:31 AM

Assuming, of course, that the level of gun violence in Mexico is a direct result of those restrictions. No wonder there is so much public fury and outrage in Australia, seeing the fate that awaits them. One can hardly blame them for the massive rallies and demonstrations currently sweeping the nation.

ElvisL1ves 03-09-2013 10:24 AM

Hmm, where did all those guns in Mexico come from, I wonder? Oh yeah, Fast and Furious. I almost forgot.

Ca3799 03-09-2013 11:40 AM

Weird story out of Texas City, Texas. Some excerpts:

"During the home invasion, Jacobson allegedly assaulted the mother and daughter, police said.

The attackers tied up all three residents and, at about 8 a.m., drove them to a field in Alvin, where they were to be killed, according to a police department news release.

On the way they stopped to buy two cans of beer.

Once they got to the secluded field, Jacobson gave Barnett his gun and allegedly told him to shoot the hostages, according to the police statement.

But Barnett refused, and since he was then in possession of the weapon, Jacobson had no choice but to cooperate with him, the release said.
The men next drove to another store and bought beer for themselves and soft drinks for the family. At that point, they returned the hostages to their home to help dispose of any evidence left there, the release said.

The teenage boy somehow freed himself, got the family's handgun and confronted the intruders, who then fled.

About 11:10 a.m., the family called police, who arrived in less than a minute, the release said. With the help of neighbors, officers chased Jacobson several blocks and found him hiding in some tall grass."

Link: http://www.chron.com/news/houston-te...al-4339398.php

The teen showed remarkable restraint in not shooting one or both of the bumbling criminals, and I guess the criminals showed remarkable restraint by not only not shooting the hostages, but also buying them some sodas while they held them in the field, but I was very impressed that it took only one minute for the cops to arrive. According to gun nuts, that is not possible.

Lumpy 03-09-2013 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elucidator (Post 16081128)
Assuming, of course, that the level of gun violence in Mexico is a direct result of those restrictions.

Well it's certainly in spite of those restrictions.

elucidator 03-09-2013 04:00 PM

"Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States."

Porfirio Diaz, President of Mexico

Damuri Ajashi 03-09-2013 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elucidator (Post 16080590)
Excuse me, but says who? Who says the CDC work was biased and flawed? ...
You state this so matter of factly, as if its something that everybody knows and nobody questions, I'm duty bound to question. Says who?

Says the people who got the ban put in place but didn't lobby to ban this sort of research at other agencies. If the NRa is so against any research into gun violence, why wouldn't they try to shut down all research throughout government? I don't endorse what the NRA did, like I keep saying, I think the report discredits the authors of the report (as well as the publishers of the report, at least on this issue) but I don't think censorship is ever a good thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tequila Party (Post 16080600)
But if a state passes laws arbitrarily confiscating weapons from law abiding and mentally sound citizens, the Supreme Court thus far has upheld a persons's right to bear arms, most recently in the 2010 case of McDonald v Chicago.

The supreme court explicitly ruled that the right to bear arms does not include the right to bear whatever you wanted. I think Heller and McDonald stands for the proposition that you can have whaever you need for effective self defense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ca3799 (Post 16081439)
I was very impressed that it took only one minute for the cops to arrive. According to gun nuts, that is not possible.

So am I, I don't think that happens very frequently.

I still remember stories of cops driving away from criminals that were looting a store and leaving the store owner to fend for himself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by elucidator (Post 16081967)
"Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States."

Porfirio Diaz, President of Mexico

As with the CDC research issue, I'm not endorsing or supporting the idea. I'm just trying to tel you what people are concerned about. If it isn't clear by now, I fully support national licensing and registration requirements. I think that a nataional gun license should give me the right to possess a gun in all 50 states plus the district of Columbia (and perhaps give me a right to carry (concealed or open) in all the states).

Here's the part where I probably go a bit further than the run of the m ill gun but. I think that we should lift the ban on the sale of new machine guns to the public (under the current NFA rules which are much stricter than the national registration would be), In particular, I think they should start selling surplus M-16s and M-4s to the public, they currently go for about $25K. The US military could probably sell about a million surplus M-16s for $5000-10,000 each (to be totally honest, they could probably get more than that for one in very good condition).

elucidator 03-09-2013 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 16082572)
Says the people who got the ban put in place but didn't lobby to ban this sort of research at other agencies. If the NRa is so against any research into gun violence, why wouldn't they try to shut down all research throughout government? I don't endorse what the NRA did, like I keep saying, I think the report discredits the authors of the report (as well as the publishers of the report, at least on this issue) but I don't think censorship is ever a good thing....

Not really the question, now was it, hoss? All you are really saying is that the people who didn't like the results said it wasn't good science.

Well, OK, if they criticize the science, are they alone in that criticism? I asked the question quite clearly, who else criticized the methods of their studies, beside the people who's ox was being gored?

Now, if half a dozen statistical academics, scientists or specialists in epidemiology had stepped forward to point out a flaw, then there would definitely be a case for suspicion. Did that happen?

Quote:

....I think they should start selling surplus M-16s and M-4s to the public, they currently go for about $25K. The US military could probably sell about a million surplus M-16s for $5000-10,000 each (to be totally honest, they could probably get more than that for one in very good condition).
When you broach this suggestion in public, do people have a tendency to back away slowly while making placating hand gestures, speaking in soothing voices and their eyes darting about looking for the nearest exit. There's a reason for that....

Ca3799 03-10-2013 07:57 AM

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archive....php?ref=fpblg

Zerlina Maxwell went on the Sean Hannity show to discuss "whether women should carry or have the right to carry firearms to protect themselves against rape and sexual violence." Her point was that "it should be on men and the culture in general to make rape and sexual assault unacceptable rather than on women to arm themselves to not be raped."

Since then she has been inundated with vile, racist and threatening Tweets, Facebook posts and other on-line attacks from gun nuts who felt threatened by her comments- threatened enough to call for her to be raped and murdered.

Kable 03-10-2013 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian (Post 16081062)
Is crazy!

Why is it crazy?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:07 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.