Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #801  
Old 02-27-2013, 05:56 PM
levdrakon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 17,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasg View Post
Breaking news - guns don't shoot people, dogs shoot people.
I think this part is funny:
Quote:
According to the police report, Lanier said he was driving along State Road 17 North when the dog kicked "the unloaded .380 pistol." It went on to say that Lanier was "surprised" to learn not only that the gun was loaded, but also that it was actually a 9mm weapon, not a .380.
The incident is only the latest in a string of bizarre shootings in Florida. Just last week, a woman in St. Petersburg was wounded when she was shot by a friend's oven.
  #802  
Old 02-27-2013, 09:41 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
Damuri Ajashi, your rank ignorance of research and how it is done is shocking.

You keep saying that the NCVS survey is research, and in a broad sense it is, but what you keep saying about the CDC and DoJ is akin to saying "Why should the NIH do research on cancer, since the American Cancer Society already did a survey and found out how many people have cancer."

CDC is an agency of the federal government, like NIH and DoJ. They do some internal stuff and a lot of external funding of research. DoJ is not particularly involved in research, although they do also do some funding of external research projects.

Basically you're coming off like a fool on the subject.
So you admit that there is gun violence research being done by the government but I'm coming off like a fool for insisting that the government is doing research on gun violence because its not the kind of research you want? Like I said, I don't have a problem with CDC research into gun violence but people act like we don't know anything about gun violence because the CDC hasn't weighed in since the 1990's.

So tell me what is making me sound foolish? Is it because I insist that research is being done despite the fact that the CDC has been banned from doing research? What about Hemenway at Harvard that someone mentioned earlier. Do they do any research into gun violence or were they banned too? Or does non-governmental research not count?

It seems like you want the CDC to do research because you think only the CDC can do research on gun violence. They did research in the 1990's, I told you what their research said and why it was perceived as biased. Did you even know what the research said before I told you? Did you know the particulars of why the NRA was objecting to the CDC research but not research done by other agencies? Or were you just jerking your knee?

I'm sorry you are losing the gun control debate so badly, its one of the few issues that liberals are on the wrong side of the argument. I'm sorry that you aren't as used to being wrong as the conservatives but if you keep beating the gun control drums, you are going to have to get used to that feeling.

And you think I'm the one sounding foolish? Pffft!!!

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 02-27-2013 at 09:41 PM.
  #803  
Old 02-28-2013, 03:48 AM
gamerunknown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
In no other case is this sort of strict owner liability imposed. If some underage kids raid my bar and get caught, I am not liable for giving those underage kids liquor. But you would make me liable for an underage kid possessing my firearm as if I had given it to them?

If I have a bottle of rat poison and a kid gets into and kills himself, I am not liable. But if a kid gets a hold of my gun and shoots himself, I'm guilty of a felony? Which felony? Murder?
I'm guessing the reason you're covered from prosecution is because of reasonable precautions. If you left your door open as a group of teens went past and winked at them before disappearing into the back room, it'd be a different story.
  #804  
Old 02-28-2013, 05:40 AM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
So you admit that there is gun violence research being done by the government but I'm coming off like a fool for insisting that the government is doing research on gun violence because its not the kind of research you want? Like I said, I don't have a problem with CDC research into gun violence but people act like we don't know anything about gun violence because the CDC hasn't weighed in since the 1990's.

So tell me what is making me sound foolish? Is it because I insist that research is being done despite the fact that the CDC has been banned from doing research? What about Hemenway at Harvard that someone mentioned earlier. Do they do any research into gun violence or were they banned too? Or does non-governmental research not count?

It seems like you want the CDC to do research because you think only the CDC can do research on gun violence. They did research in the 1990's, I told you what their research said and why it was perceived as biased. Did you even know what the research said before I told you? Did you know the particulars of why the NRA was objecting to the CDC research but not research done by other agencies? Or were you just jerking your knee?

I'm sorry you are losing the gun control debate so badly, its one of the few issues that liberals are on the wrong side of the argument. I'm sorry that you aren't as used to being wrong as the conservatives but if you keep beating the gun control drums, you are going to have to get used to that feeling.

And you think I'm the one sounding foolish? Pffft!!!
So tell me, in the DoJ research, what factors correlate with self-reported defensive gun use? What predicted change in defensive gun use reports over time? Were there any limitations found to be associated with the method of data collection relative to other data collection efforts?

Asking a survey is not the pinnacle of research. The DOJ is not a research organization.

Individuals don't fund their own research. Academic institutions don't fund research to a meaningful degree.

Certain agencies are tasked with investigating particular topics. The NIMH has dramatically pulled away from funding violence research. The focus on the public health aspects of gun violence is perfectly within the intent, scope, mandate and mission of the CDC. Understanding processes related to death and injury across the population is what they do.

When a private organization with an agenda gets funding shut down, that's a huge problem.

You keep saying it's okay because you found an interview with one guy who made an analogy to a medication risk profile that would result in that med getting banned. So, what gun violence research did that money get diverted to, then?

Yes, you're a fucking moron.
  #805  
Old 02-28-2013, 05:57 AM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Let me put it more succinctly, DA.

Tell me what hypotheses the DOJ has tested regarding gun violence. Tell me what line of research they are planning based on the results of the hypotheses they previously tested.

As to losing the debate, majorities agree with the liberal position. Congress is acting. It's hard to see how this is losing.

The only impediment to change is entrenched interests, which benefit greatly from the lack of empirical evidence. Liberals still believe knowledge is power. You should try it out.
  #806  
Old 02-28-2013, 06:38 AM
Skip is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 726
Texas School Worker Shot During Handgun Training Class
Quote:
At the conclusion of the CHL training on February 27, 2013, one certified person stayed for private instruction with the instructor and had a mechanical malfunction with his weapon. With the assistance of the instructor, the malfunction was addressed, but the gun misfired and the bullet ricocheted coming back to strike the VISD employee in the left leg. The VISD employee was attended to at the scene and transferred to Tyler for further treatment.

Last edited by Skip; 02-28-2013 at 06:38 AM. Reason: Wrong link
  #807  
Old 02-28-2013, 06:48 AM
Ca3799 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tejas
Posts: 4,331
A fourth-grade student in the San Antonio area was suspended after officials said she shot two classmates in the leg with an airsoft gun during class on Tuesday.

Steve Linscomb, spokesman for Judson Independent School District, said the girl and a male classmate who brought the gun to Woodlake Elementary School were both suspended for three days.

Neither of the girls who were shot had serious injuries, Linscomb said, adding there was some bruising but the pellets didn't break their skin.

The suspended students are set to undergo an assessment on March 1.

“We'll look and see if there was any kind of planning involved ... or if they were actually wanting to hurt someone,” Linscomb said. “Those are the questions we hope to answer then.”

Linscomb said the parents of the students involved were called Tuesday and an automated call went out to all parents Wednesday.

One parent of an injured student has decided to file assault charges against the girl who fired the gun, Linscomb said."



If only these 10 year olds had had firearms training, they wouldn't have assault charges!
  #808  
Old 02-28-2013, 07:22 AM
Ca3799 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tejas
Posts: 4,331
I listened to the "This American Life" double podcast about life at Harper High School in Chicago and was shocked to learn that last year, 29 former or current students at Harper were shot and 8 died.

29. In one year.

Chicago certainly has some unique problems with crime, guns and poverty, but 29 students from one high school in one year is incredible.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/blog...er-high-school

Last edited by Ca3799; 02-28-2013 at 07:23 AM.
  #809  
Old 02-28-2013, 07:57 AM
Ca3799 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tejas
Posts: 4,331
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2j1tbwt0_tg

Piers Morgan and an ER surgeon from Sandy Hook who testified at the Capitol Hill hearings briefly discuss the difference between a handgun injury and an assault weapon injury, the effects of which displayed using 40 pound gel blocks.
  #810  
Old 02-28-2013, 08:00 AM
Ca3799 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tejas
Posts: 4,331
“If we are going to wet our proverbial pants over 0.3% in annual spending cuts when we’re running up trillion dollar annual deficits, then we’re done. Put a fork in us. We’re finished. We’re going to default eventually and that’s why the feds are stockpiling bullets in case of civil unrest,” Palin wrote in a Facebook message Tuesday.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...#ixzz2MCbE86lg



Huh, didn't know she was still alive.
  #811  
Old 02-28-2013, 08:06 AM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ca3799 View Post
I listened to the "This American Life" double podcast about life at Harper High School in Chicago and was shocked to learn that last year, 29 former or current students at Harper were shot and 8 died.

29. In one year.

Chicago certainly has some unique problems with crime, guns and poverty, but 29 students from one high school in one year is incredible.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/blog...er-high-school
But liberals just want to ban guns because they're ignorant urbanites who probably have never seen a gun. They have no idea how incredibly useful firearms are! All they know is that they're black and scary, and they'd never have to live with the consequences of all the violence that would inevitably result if only criminals have guns!
  #812  
Old 02-28-2013, 08:33 AM
bup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: glenview,il,usa
Posts: 11,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ca3799 View Post
“If we are going to wet our proverbial pants over 0.3% in annual spending cuts when we’re running up trillion dollar annual deficits, then we’re done. Put a fork in us. We’re finished. We’re going to default eventually and that’s why the feds are stockpiling bullets in case of civil unrest,” Palin wrote in a Facebook message Tuesday.
Proverbial pants?

I guess those are the ones we all put on one leg at a time?
  #813  
Old 02-28-2013, 09:09 AM
Ca3799 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tejas
Posts: 4,331
Texas state Rep. Dan Flynn introduced a bill to cut down the training required of concealed carry permit holders from 10 hours to just four.

Flynn claimed there would be no difference between the two classes. WFAA reports:

“You spend a lot of time taking breaks, you spend a lot of time hearing stories,” Flynn said. “A lot of people who try to get their license, they have to take a day off of work, or they have to take a whole Saturday to go do this where, four hours, range time, you can do the same thing and it accomplishes it.”

Naturally, shooting instructors call the change unsafe. “It takes me four hours just to go through one segment, which is the lawful use of deadly force,” Travis Bond, a National Rifle Association member who runs a firearm training academy, said. “There’s no way you can teach people what they need to know.”

http://thinkprogress.org/?mobile=nc

I'd like to see more responsibly trained gun owners, not less.
  #814  
Old 02-28-2013, 09:18 AM
Grrr!'s Avatar
Grrr! is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 16,331
Not Pit worthy but WTF funny:

CPAC snubs Christie.

Yeah, that makes total sense, snub the most highly approved Republican in the country. It's not like you guys should be following his example if you ever hope to get your fucking party in order.
  #815  
Old 02-28-2013, 09:19 AM
Ca3799 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tejas
Posts: 4,331
So, Lindsey Graham was upset that:

"When almost 80,000 people fail a background check and 44 people are prosecuted, what kind of deterrent is that? I mean, the law obviously is not seeing that as important…. We absolutely do nothing to enforce the laws on the books…"

But, not passing a background check is not a prosecutable crime in and of itself, as far as I know.

Milwaukee police chief Edward Flynn pointed out that the police just don't have the resources to attempt to prosecute the 76,000 people who were declined a gun purchase based on a background check.
  #816  
Old 02-28-2013, 09:23 AM
Ca3799 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tejas
Posts: 4,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shakes View Post
Not Pit worthy but WTF funny:

CPAC snubs Christie.

Yeah, that makes total sense, snub the most highly approved Republican in the country. It's not like you guys should be following his example if you ever hope to get your fucking party in order.

Yah, I enjoyed that, too.

It was only a few short months ago the Christie was the new GOP golden boy and potential savior. The GOP/conservatives/Republicans/tea partiers/libertarians (I get who-is-who and all of them confused these days. But then, so do they.) is positively schizophrenic right now.
  #817  
Old 02-28-2013, 10:21 AM
lost4life is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Southeast of something
Posts: 3,646
Vigilante shoots at shoplifter in Walmart parking lot, hitting several cars.

Quote:
ORANGE CITY, Fla. -

A man arrested for opening fire in a busy Walmart parking lot said he was trying to stop a shoplifter and is now defending his actions.

Orange City police arrested Jose Martinez, 35, after they said he unleashed at least five bullets in the parking lot of the Walmart on Veterans Memorial Parkway.
  #818  
Old 02-28-2013, 10:29 AM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by lost4life View Post
Vigilante shoots at shoplifter in Walmart parking lot, hitting several cars.
Wow.

Quote:
Martinez said to Local 6, he thought nobody else was in danger by his gunfire and he was surprised police arrested him. Martinez started opening fire because he said he wanted to mark the suspect's car as he fled from the scene. He has his concealed weapons permit but has been charged with two felonies, aggravated assault and shooting into an occupied vehicle.
That's a new one.
  #819  
Old 02-28-2013, 10:33 AM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by lost4life View Post
Vigilante shoots at shoplifter in Walmart parking lot, hitting several cars.
But, but, but he's a CCW dude. They are paragons of calm, cool collected gun saavy! They never commit crimes!
  #820  
Old 02-28-2013, 10:34 AM
jasg is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Upper left hand corner
Posts: 6,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by lost4life View Post
Vigilante shoots at shoplifter in Walmart parking lot, hitting several cars.
Deadly force for shoplifting? Let us hope Walmart doesn't take that to heart as they complete their takeover of the economy...
  #821  
Old 02-28-2013, 10:40 AM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasg View Post
Deadly force for shoplifting? Let us hope Walmart doesn't take that to heart as they complete their takeover of the economy...
Reminds me of a 2.5 hour sing-talk movie I recently endured about excessive punishment for stealing a loaf of bread. If avoiding more of those isn't motivation for making sure the punishment fits the crime, I don't know what is.
  #822  
Old 02-28-2013, 10:44 AM
YogSothoth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
It was a DECADE!!! How much longer does the test period have to be before its a valid test of then policy? The DoJ says that an AWB is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. At this point you are dangerously close to saying that you cannot be swayed by facts. You sound like Republicans who try to justify supply side economics when they say that the only reason it didn't work was because it needed more time to become effective.
In another topic, I mentioned 50 years. And I think if I ever reach the point where I am unswayed by facts, I would have only grazed the point at which most pro gun people have been operating at for the last 30 years. There are people in that other topic who have basically said that it goes against their moral beliefs to be denied a gun and there's no arguing over it. So if you think me that irrational, there are plenty of and more severe sufferers of this elsewhere. I believe in facts, but I also believe that 200 million plus guns cannot be affected significantly by a ban on one small type of weapon, which had many loopholes, and readily available substitutes. Surely you understand that just because there was a ban, doesn't mean it would be super effective? There are other factors like length of time and alternatives to consider

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
You can't tell legal gun owners that its ok to ban assault weapons because there are so many other weapons to choose from but assume that the same choice is not going to be available to criminals who aren't nearly as likely to comply with any law.
Again, yes I can, because you still have legal alternatives. Why is it that you worry so much about having the exact same type of weapons as criminals? If someone bans Hondas and only criminals have Hondas, I'm not going to sit around worrying about why I can't have a Honda (if there was a legitimate reason for banning it). I'd get a Toyota instead. Same with you. So what if all assault weapons were banned? You still have handguns and other types of guns. Let the criminals have the assault weapons, what's it to you? Then we can more easily identify and capture criminals because there wouldn't be the grey area of whether this was a legal or illegal assault weapon, they'd all be illegal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Of course the AWB was effective in banning the weapons it actually banned, thats not the question.
Of course it is! That is one part of the equation but an important part. It shows that gun bans DO have an effect, so let's get rid of those loopholes and ban all the guns that need to be banned and we know, as you've said, it was effective. Don't blame the law if there are loopholes, blame the loopholes, and then close the loopholes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
The question is whether banning any small subset of guns is going to have any impact at all on gun violence generally. The vast majority of criminals use a 38 special, a .380, or a 9 mm. If we banned these calibers, I am confident, that it would have no discernible effect on gun violence no matter how long the ban was in effect. Similarly, banning a small subset of guns will have no effect on gun violence no matter how long that ban remains in effect.
The obvious solution is to ban a larger subset

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
We have had a ban on machine guns since 1986. That ban has had no discernible effect on gun violence in the 25 years since it was passed. How much longer before we can expect to see the impact of THAT ban?
I like that ban. You and I shouldn't be able to own such guns. Just as I'm sure there was little chance of a suitcase nuke being available to regular citizens, I'd be glad if they put a ban in place before such things are let loose. You know, when they design, for example, a car, they know what can be dangerous and what could present a danger. Even if its something that hasn't been released to the public yet, or very limited release, they do an evaluation of it before it is mass marketed so that nothing dangerous gets into the hands of people. We KNOW that machine guns are very dangerous and could be used for mass killings. And we KNOW that you do not need one for self-defense barring the unrealistic zombie horde scenarios. I'm glad that nobody was killed by machine guns in the last 25 years and I'm glad its banned. You shouldn't have that, neither should I. Same with assault weapons. We know what it could be used for, and unlike machine guns, we have some data of what happens when its mass marketed. So even if it hasn't been the subject of much slaughter overall, we should still ban it completely

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Why? There have been several studies already. What makes the CDC so qualified to research gun violence while other government agencies that have already studied this are not? Looking to the CDC for a more favorable report is really an exericise in forum shopping, or do you think the DoJ is a pro-gun outfit?
Simply put, I don't trust the NRA or "independent" reviews of this sort of thing. I'm not sure which DoJ did your study that you're referring to, but I wouldn't trust a Republican one either. They have no credibility to me. You might as well say we must get both sides of the issue on the evolution/creationism teaching in schools. I trust Obama's CDC to do this study and theirs is the only data I would accept. Conservatives have too long dominated this field and they are batshit insane
  #823  
Old 02-28-2013, 11:05 AM
Grrr!'s Avatar
Grrr! is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 16,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shakes View Post
Not Pit worthy but WTF funny:

CPAC snubs Christie.

Yeah, that makes total sense, snub the most highly approved Republican in the country. It's not like you guys should be following his example if you ever hope to get your fucking party in order.
This was obviously meant for the Stupid Republican Thread.

I'll repost it in the correct thread now.
  #824  
Old 02-28-2013, 12:24 PM
Ca3799 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tejas
Posts: 4,331
"The February Kaiser Health Tracking Poll focuses on some of the health policy implications of this winter’s national debate over gun violence, gun control and the adequacy of the nation’s response to the needs of those living with serious mental illness. The survey finds that one in five Americans have some connection to a victim of gun violence, a share that doubles to 42 percent among blacks. Worry about becoming a victim is even more widespread among the public (four in ten are at least somewhat worried) and again is strikingly high among members of minority groups (62 percent of blacks express concern, as do 75 percent of Hispanics). "

So, currently, 40% of the public is worried about becoming a victim of gun violence. Will more guns increase or decrease this fear?
  #825  
Old 02-28-2013, 03:18 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ca3799 View Post
So, Lindsey Graham was upset that:

"When almost 80,000 people fail a background check and 44 people are prosecuted, what kind of deterrent is that? I mean, the law obviously is not seeing that as important…. We absolutely do nothing to enforce the laws on the books…"

But, not passing a background check is not a prosecutable crime in and of itself, as far as I know.

Milwaukee police chief Edward Flynn pointed out that the police just don't have the resources to attempt to prosecute the 76,000 people who were declined a gun purchase based on a background check.
IIRC, it is illegal for a felon to purchase (or even possess) a firearm. If we can't chase down felons who are trying to obtain a firearm then WTF do we have the resources to do?

NONE of the rules we are trying to pass will mean anything unless we enforce them.
  #826  
Old 02-28-2013, 03:38 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
If we can't chase down felons who are trying to obtain a firearm...
Is it a crime for a felon to be denied a gun purchase because of a background check?
  #827  
Old 02-28-2013, 03:40 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
So tell me, in the DoJ research, what factors correlate with self-reported defensive gun use? What predicted change in defensive gun use reports over time? Were there any limitations found to be associated with the method of data collection relative to other data collection efforts?
You read it and tell me. You don't like their research, take it up with the governmetn agency that conducted teh reseearch without any interference from the omnipotent NRA.

Quote:
Asking a survey is not the pinnacle of research. The DOJ is not a research organization.
Neither is the CDC (it is one of its missions http://www.cdc.gov/about/organization/mission.htm), they have a research division as does the DoJ.

Quote:
Individuals don't fund their own research. Academic institutions don't fund research to a meaningful degree.
So how is that guy Hemenway at Harvard doing HIS work?

Quote:
Certain agencies are tasked with investigating particular topics. The NIMH has dramatically pulled away from funding violence research. The focus on the public health aspects of gun violence is perfectly within the intent, scope, mandate and mission of the CDC. Understanding processes related to death and injury across the population is what they do.
Sure, I have no beef with that. I am merely explaining that the NRA isn't against research, they don't object to the DOJ or the ATF doing research. They object to the CDC doing research because of the peceived bias in their previous reports.

Quote:
When a private organization with an agenda gets funding shut down, that's a huge problem.
They are not omnipotent.

Quote:
You keep saying it's okay because you found an interview with one guy who made an analogy to a medication risk profile that would result in that med getting banned. So, what gun violence research did that money get diverted to, then?
How many cites do i need? And it wasn't just some "guy" who made that analogy, it was the head of the project. I have no idea where the money got diverted but I think the total was something like $2.5 million. It was symbolic more than anything.

Quote:
Yes, you're a fucking moron.
I've disagreed with more than half the board on this issue and you are the only one that seems to think that insults will help your argument.

I'm sorry that you are so butthurt, I wish you and your butt well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
As to losing the debate, majorities agree with the liberal position. Congress is acting. It's hard to see how this is losing.
You're not losing, you've lost. You could have had universal licensing and registration in January if your side hadn't been run by idiots who spent all the political capital on a retarded AWB. Now it looks like we are going to get little more than background checks at gun shows.

I support national licensing and a national registry but now those things are out of reach. The tragedy at Sandy hook could have been the catalyst for real and meaningful gun regulation but instead your side decided to spend their limited political capital on somthing as utterly retarded as an AWB.

Quote:
The only impediment to change is entrenched interests, which benefit greatly from the lack of empirical evidence.
The NRA is hardly omnipotent. Their leadership might be a bunch of gun nuts but that is the nature of issue advocacy groups (I bet the leadership of the sierra club is a bunch a tree huggers). But what you are doing is trying to fight stupid with more stupid.

The NRA donated about $1.5 million to political campaigns in the 2012 cycle, they spent about $3 million in lobbying in 2012, They spent about $25 million in outside spending in the 2012 election cycle. There are at least half a dozen INDIVIDUALS who spent more than that. The reason your side keeps losing to the NRa is because you think your enemy is the NRA is because you are on the wrong side of the argument.

Quote:
Liberals still believe knowledge is power. You should try it out.
partisan liberals only SEEM to have more respect for facts than conservatives because the facts tend to line up on their side of the argument. It is clear that in cases like this (where the facst line up on the other side of the argument) that partisan liberals care as much about facts as partisan conservatives.

Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
But liberals just want to ban guns because they're ignorant urbanites who probably have never seen a gun. They have no idea how incredibly useful firearms are! All they know is that they're black and scary, and they'd never have to live with the consequences of all the violence that would inevitably result if only criminals have guns!
You do realize it is almost impossible for a civilian to legally possess a firearm in Chicago right? Almost all privately owned guns in Chicago are owned by gangsters and criminals.
  #828  
Old 02-28-2013, 04:55 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ca3799 View Post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2j1tbwt0_tg

Piers Morgan and an ER surgeon from Sandy Hook who testified at the Capitol Hill hearings briefly discuss the difference between a handgun injury and an assault weapon injury, the effects of which displayed using 40 pound gel blocks.
That is not an "assault weapon" versus handgun issue. That is a rifle versus handgun issue.

Rifles just have a lot more destructive power than most handguns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_energy

The AR-15 uses the 5.56 round. It is one of the weaker rifle rounds. The 7.62*39 is the AK-47 round. The 7.62*51 is the M-14 round (what the military used before teh M-16) and is also the round used by NATO. The hunting rounds vary but anythign that can reliably take down a deer is likely to have more power than an AR-15.

Here is a pretty good video on the effects of various rounds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tku8YI68-JA

A doctor addresses a bunch of (I think) paramedics on firearm injuries. WARNING: Graphic, VERY graphic at times.

Quote:
Originally Posted by YogSosoth View Post
In another topic, I mentioned 50 years. And I think if I ever reach the point where I am unswayed by facts, I would have only grazed the point at which most pro gun people have been operating at for the last 30 years. There are people in that other topic who have basically said that it goes against their moral beliefs to be denied a gun and there's no arguing over it. So if you think me that irrational, there are plenty of and more severe sufferers of this elsewhere.
You shouldn't fight irrational with more irrational, thats how holy wars are started.

Quote:
I believe in facts, but I also believe that 200 million plus guns cannot be affected significantly by a ban on one small type of weapon, which had many loopholes, and readily available substitutes. Surely you understand that just because there was a ban, doesn't mean it would be super effective? There are other factors like length of time and alternatives to consider
I believe that there is no ban that doesn't affact an unconstitutionally broad category of weapons that will make any measurable difference in gun violence.

The only way your approach works is if we ban and confiscate all guns. If that is the ultimate goal then you should really be working on repealing the second amendment.

My approach works without taking away a single gun from any law abiding citizen and without denying them their choice of firearms. Licensing and registration will choke criminal access to firearms and the number of guns in criminals hands will settlle at a much lower level than it is right now.

Quote:
Again, yes I can, because you still have legal alternatives. Why is it that you worry so much about having the exact same type of weapons as criminals? If someone bans Hondas and only criminals have Hondas, I'm not going to sit around worrying about why I can't have a Honda (if there was a legitimate reason for banning it). I'd get a Toyota instead. Same with you. So what if all assault weapons were banned? You still have handguns and other types of guns. Let the criminals have the assault weapons, what's it to you? Then we can more easily identify and capture criminals because there wouldn't be the grey area of whether this was a legal or illegal assault weapon, they'd all be illegal.
I think you misunderstand what I am saying. I am saying that the reason these bans are ineffective is because even if you had the magical power to totally eradicate these assault weapons from the face of the earth, the criminals would have the same alternatives I do. They would be able to continue to commit crimes these alternatives so nothing short of a near total ban on guns would have any effect.

If someone bans Hondas because criminals use Hondas then criminals would just start using Toyotas to commit crimes, you have achieved nothing other than infringing on the second amendment.

As for "whats it to me" given the lack of an AWB to amke any difference, you are incringing on the second amendment without any valid reason. The second amendment is not absolute but you still need a good reason to infringe on it just like I need a good reason to restrict free speech.

I'm saying that your focus is wrong. You shouldn't be trying to get rid of guns, considering the source of the overwhelming majority of gun homocides, you should be trying to restrict a criminal (or domestic abuser's) ability to obtain a firearm. Will this prevent some madman from killing innocent people from time to time, no, but nothing short of total confiscation will achieve that goal and you can't do that without repealing teh second amendment.

Quote:
Of course it is! That is one part of the equation but an important part. It shows that gun bans DO have an effect, so let's get rid of those loopholes and ban all the guns that need to be banned and we know, as you've said, it was effective. Don't blame the law if there are loopholes, blame the loopholes, and then close the loopholes
It has no effect on gun violence. It merely makes criminals buy guns from private sellers or jsut use a diffferent gun. And the AWB didn't have "loopholes" that you could fix unless you banned all semi-automatic rifles. The new proposed AWB doesn't ban a Remington 750 ,a more powerful semi-automatic rifle than the AR-15, that just doesn't look as scary. An AWB has no discernible effect on gun violence not because there were loopholes but because its retarded.

Quote:
The obvious solution is to ban a larger subset
What subset would you ban?

Quote:
I like that ban. You and I shouldn't be able to own such guns. Just as I'm sure there was little chance of a suitcase nuke being available to regular citizens, I'd be glad if they put a ban in place before such things are let loose. You know, when they design, for example, a car, they know what can be dangerous and what could present a danger. Even if its something that hasn't been released to the public yet, or very limited release, they do an evaluation of it before it is mass marketed so that nothing dangerous gets into the hands of people. We KNOW that machine guns are very dangerous and could be used for mass killings. And we KNOW that you do not need one for self-defense barring the unrealistic zombie horde scenarios. I'm glad that nobody was killed by machine guns in the last 25 years and I'm glad its banned. You shouldn't have that, neither should I. Same with assault weapons. We know what it could be used for, and unlike machine guns, we have some data of what happens when its mass marketed. So even if it hasn't been the subject of much slaughter overall, we should still ban it completely
First of all, don't go full auto against zombies. hitting them anywhere other than the brain case is almsot entirely ineffective. Shot placement is the msot important thing when killing zombies.

Second, my point is that the reduction in machine gun violence was achieved through a national registry. When we were able to keep track of all the machine guns, noone sold their machine guns to criminals. similarly, when we keep track of all the firearms, noone will sell their guns to criminals.

Quote:
Simply put, I don't trust the NRA or "independent" reviews of this sort of thing. I'm not sure which DoJ did your study that you're referring to, but I wouldn't trust a Republican one either. They have no credibility to me. You might as well say we must get both sides of the issue on the evolution/creationism teaching in schools. I trust Obama's CDC to do this study and theirs is the only data I would accept. Conservatives have too long dominated this field and they are batshit insane
Wait?!?! What? Now who is being paranoid? The DOJ criticized their own study because they didn't like the results. If you think it takes a partisan study to support your case then you have already given up trying to win on the facts.

What about Hemenway at harvard? Is he tainted too? You are basically forum shopping your studies. You are basically saying that you will only accept a study that your opponents consider biased.

Don't try to fight stupid with more stupid, they are going to beat you with numbers and experience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ca3799 View Post
So, currently, 40% of the public is worried about becoming a victim of gun violence. Will more guns increase or decrease this fear?
Depends on who has the guns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
Is it a crime for a felon to be denied a gun purchase because of a background check?
I think it is a crime for them to merely try to purchase one. If you possess the firearm at any point during the pruchase process (e.g. you hold the gun to test the grip), you can be convicted of possession instead of merely attempted purchase of a firearm.
  #829  
Old 02-28-2013, 06:14 PM
Ca3799 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tejas
Posts: 4,331
"WASHINGTON, Feb 28 (Reuters) - The Maryland Senate approved a comprehensive gun control bill on Thursday that includes a ban on assault weapons and fingerprinting for prospective handgun buyers.

The Democratic-controlled Senate passed the bill 28-19 and sent it on to the House of Delegates, according to the chamber's website.

Democratic Governor Martin O'Malley proposed the measure in the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut, school massacre in December in which 20 children and six adults died. The rampage reignited a national debate on gun control.

The bill has a licensing requirement for handgun buyers to submit fingerprints to state police. Gun buyers also have to complete an eight-hour safety training course and undergo a more rigorous background check before purchasing a weapon. "

Meanwhile, in Idaho, a Rebublican politician has introduced a constitutional amendment to require all citizens to join a militia.
  #830  
Old 02-28-2013, 06:31 PM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
You do realize it is almost impossible for a civilian to legally possess a firearm in Chicago right? Almost all privately owned guns in Chicago are owned by gangsters and criminals.
You do realize that Chicagoans, by and large, want it that way? Why do you think they vote Democrat? Why did they vote in legislators who passed strict gun laws? Because they're ignorant? Or because they're the ones who have to deal with daily shootings?
  #831  
Old 02-28-2013, 06:40 PM
levdrakon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 17,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ca3799 View Post
Texas state Rep. Dan Flynn introduced a bill to cut down the training required of concealed carry permit holders from 10 hours to just four.
Arizona already did away with permitting and training requirements. Go get yourself an Uzi off the internet, stick it under your coat and you too can run through Walmart parking lots shooting at cars because nobody told you you couldn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ca3799 View Post
So, Lindsey Graham was upset that:

"When almost 80,000 people fail a background check and 44 people are prosecuted, what kind of deterrent is that? I mean, the law obviously is not seeing that as important…. We absolutely do nothing to enforce the laws on the books…"

But, not passing a background check is not a prosecutable crime in and of itself, as far as I know.

Milwaukee police chief Edward Flynn pointed out that the police just don't have the resources to attempt to prosecute the 76,000 people who were declined a gun purchase based on a background check.
Being denied isn't a crime. Lying on the little government form that asks, "are you a convicted felon?" is a crime. If you were denied and didn't get the gun, no biggie. Remember the NRA made sure the ATF was understaffed and underfunded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
IIRC, it is illegal for a felon to purchase (or even possess) a firearm. If we can't chase down felons who are trying to obtain a firearm then WTF do we have the resources to do?

NONE of the rules we are trying to pass will mean anything unless we enforce them.
The NRA makes sure we don't have the resources to enforce the law so they can turn around and say things like, "if we can't enforce the laws, we shouldn't have laws!"

See how that works?
  #832  
Old 02-28-2013, 07:01 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
You do realize that Chicagoans, by and large, want it that way? Why do you think they vote Democrat? Why did they vote in legislators who passed strict gun laws? Because they're ignorant? Or because they're the ones who have to deal with daily shootings?
So you have what you want. You have a near total gun ban, the place should be a fucking paradise of peace and non-violence. Let me know how its going.
  #833  
Old 02-28-2013, 07:08 PM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
So you have what you want. You have a near total gun ban, the place should be a fucking paradise of peace and non-violence. Let me know how its going.
First of all, I don't want a gun bun. I've said as much in this thread. It's gotta be hard to keep track of all of us, but up there on your pedestal I'd have thought your view would be better.

Secondly, I'll readily admit that micro-level gun bans are a silly idea; gun buns would seem to work better over a larger geographical area, preferably one that entirely encompasses an island. Like Australia, Japan, England...

Third, try answer the questions I asked. Or you can just assume that anyone who votes against guns is just ignorant and has never seen one in real life.
  #834  
Old 02-28-2013, 07:12 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,993
Never much liked handguns before one was pointed at me. Never had a deer rifle pointed at me, but that may be due to the lack of antlers. Not that it always works.
  #835  
Old 02-28-2013, 07:29 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by levdrakon View Post
The NRA makes sure we don't have the resources to enforce the law so they can turn around and say things like, "if we can't enforce the laws, we shouldn't have laws!"

See how that works?
Whose resources is the NRA diminishing? Because I think federal laws are enforcable by the ATF, the FBI, the DEA or any other federal law enforcement agency. Is the NRA fucking with all their budgets?

Also, many states have laws against felons possessing or attempting to purchase a firearm, these laws are enforced by state and local officers. Is the NRA fucking with their budgets as well?

I don't follow the philosophy that we don't need more regulations until we enforce the ones we've got but we still ought to enforce the ones we've got.
  #836  
Old 02-28-2013, 08:32 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
First of all, I don't want a gun bun. I've said as much in this thread. It's gotta be hard to keep track of all of us, but up there on your pedestal I'd have thought your view would be better.

Secondly, I'll readily admit that micro-level gun bans are a silly idea; gun buns would seem to work better over a larger geographical area, preferably one that entirely encompasses an island. Like Australia, Japan, England...

Third, try answer the questions I asked. Or you can just assume that anyone who votes against guns is just ignorant and has never seen one in real life.
Your previous post:

Quote:
But liberals just want to ban guns because they're ignorant urbanites who probably have never seen a gun. They have no idea how incredibly useful firearms are! All they know is that they're black and scary, and they'd never have to live with the consequences of all the violence that would inevitably result if only criminals have guns!
Sorry if I mistook your post as an endorsement of gun bans. Your post sounds like you think that the violence is the result of the absence of a gun ban. I thought perhaps you didn't realize that all those deaths were likely at the hands of people who weren't supposed to have guns.

My view is not better from up here, you all just look smaller, like ants.

Gun bans will work in any area without porous borders if you also confiscate the guns and you are willing to live through years of armed criminals without any armed civilians. If you don't confiscate the existing weapons, its a pretty pointless exercise unless you keep a national gun registry and if you're going to keep a gun registry then you don't need the gun ban.

I realize that large urban areas tend to vote Democrat. I think they tend to vote Democrat for all sorts of reasons. I don't think gun control is a very big reason for people voting Democrat. It might be this year but it probably wasn't in any of the years that elected the folks who created the gun laws. I don't see how having more guns would make for fewer deaths in this (or most other) cases but I do see how having national gun licensing and registration would.

My proposal is aimed directly at these sort of gun deaths. It would do little to nothing for rampages by madmen but when you require gun licensing and registration, guns just don't flow into unauthorized hands at nearly the rate they do now. A large majority of gun deaths are the deaths described in that article, they are largely kids killing kids, or young people killing young people.

The second amendment prevents us from banning the handguns that are frequently used in these shootouts but we can prevent these guns from being transferred to these kids as easily as they are. National gun licensure and a national gun registry would go a loong way to realizing the goal of reducing gun violence. Much further than any of the other ideas on the table.

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 02-28-2013 at 08:34 PM.
  #837  
Old 02-28-2013, 08:33 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Never much liked handguns before one was pointed at me.
And that changed your mind?

Quote:
Never had a deer rifle pointed at me, but that may be due to the lack of antlers. Not that it always works.
I get the feeling you meant to respond to another thread.
  #838  
Old 03-01-2013, 02:48 AM
Stealth Potato is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ca3799 View Post
Meanwhile, in Idaho, a Rebublican politician has introduced a constitutional amendment to require all citizens to join a militia.
Well now, you can't fault a Republican too much when he's taking progressive strides to decrease the gender gap. Currently only men are required by federal law to be part of the militia.
  #839  
Old 03-01-2013, 11:53 AM
YogSothoth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
You shouldn't fight irrational with more irrational, thats how holy wars are started.
Yeah but we're on a message board. This isn't Ender's Game, nothing we say will sway anybody, anywhere

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I believe that there is no ban that doesn't affact an unconstitutionally broad category of weapons that will make any measurable difference in gun violence.
I guess we'll just always have that between us, like siamese twins sharing the same butt

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
The only way your approach works is if we ban and confiscate all guns. If that is the ultimate goal then you should really be working on repealing the second amendment.
No need to go that far. We can simply do what I have suggested and try that out for a few decades

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
My approach works without taking away a single gun from any law abiding citizen and without denying them their choice of firearms. Licensing and registration will choke criminal access to firearms and the number of guns in criminals hands will settlle at a much lower level than it is right now.
I find that logic to be odd, to say the least. Weren't you just talking about how if we ban some types of guns, only criminals will have them? Now you're saying if we license and register guns, then it won't affect just the law-abiding, but even criminals (by drying up the access). I think you're trying too hard to bend facts to your beliefs and it shows.

If, using your plan, we license and register guns AND you believe it will choke criminal access, that shows that you believe gun regulations do work. There is nothing in that quoted paragraph above to suggest that banning some types of weapons such as assault weapons won't work. So if I'm reading you right, you do think banning assault weapons can choke criminal access to them, even if we only ban a few types, its just that you don't think that the law-abiding is disproportionately affected by it, even though you admit that eventually criminals will be affected too

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I think you misunderstand what I am saying. I am saying that the reason these bans are ineffective is because even if you had the magical power to totally eradicate these assault weapons from the face of the earth, the criminals would have the same alternatives I do. They would be able to continue to commit crimes these alternatives so nothing short of a near total ban on guns would have any effect.
That is only a valid reason not to have the AWB if we assume all crimes are the same.

Don't you think that banning certain types of weapons, ones that are arguably more dangerous due to things like capacity and rapidity of fire would mitigate the severity of gun crimes? I'm not trying to turn the world into a perfect utopia, its too hard and I would miss the violent action movies. BUT! And this is a big but, if I can reduce the instances of a Sandy Hook, or reduce each Sandy Hook's severity, then I think that's a good thing EVEN THOUGH criminals can still commit crimes. As long as we reduce even more the rare instances of mass slaughter by restricting certain types of guns typically used in those slaughters, or the guns that can more easily produce those slaughters, then I think we have an obligation to do so.

The AWB, however flawed, isn't designed to eliminate all gun violence. If it were, then I would agree with you in that it does nothing and is totally pointless since criminals have alternatives. But if we assume that an AWB without loopholes would ban one or more types of weapon used at Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech, then I'm all for it. That's why I like the AWB. I don't think it'll prevent all gun violence, just some types, and reduce the severity of others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
If someone bans Hondas because criminals use Hondas then criminals would just start using Toyotas to commit crimes, you have achieved nothing other than infringing on the second amendment.
People cannot own bombs or tanks right? Do you think, just because we cannot go on the type of rampage with legal bombs and tanks, and people can make or steal alternatives, that our rights are being hampered because we can't go on ebay and buy bomb?

If there is some way Hondas contribute to crimes, then even if Toyotas are an alternative, I would still ban Hondas. The less type of weapons available to criminals, the better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I'm saying that your focus is wrong. You shouldn't be trying to get rid of guns, considering the source of the overwhelming majority of gun homocides, you should be trying to restrict a criminal (or domestic abuser's) ability to obtain a firearm. Will this prevent some madman from killing innocent people from time to time, no, but nothing short of total confiscation will achieve that goal and you can't do that without repealing teh second amendment.
I think that trying to get rid of some types of guns does contribute to the restrictions a criminal has to obtain one, that's why I support it. Its not my main focus, but almost everybody believes in the alternatives so there's nothing to debate and is boring to talk about

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
It has no effect on gun violence. It merely makes criminals buy guns from private sellers or jsut use a diffferent gun.
Same argument for drugs. Doesn't matter to me, if it should be banned because its bad, then it should be banned. We can plug up the alternatives with other regulations.

Its funny, with most bans, people aren't all gung-ho about violating the law. We banned drugs but most reasonable people don't say that's bad because there are drug dealers out there willing to break the law, but talk about guns then ever Ma and Pa Kettle says they'll just sell it illegally. Here's what I believe: if we banned assault weapons then most people will eventually fall in line and not sell these types to people. Why sell illegal merchandise when you can be throw in jail too? Your scenario speaks to an anti-government anarchist's dream, but it is not realistic. I think most dealers, if we close the loopholes, would be perfectly willing to sell only legal guns. As for the drug dealers/illegal gun sellers, there will always be some, but their existence doesn't mean that the banned object should be legal, it just means we should throw these people in jail

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
What subset would you ban?
I believe I've already mentioned it many times. My main point of contention is magazine sizes and rapidity of fire. All guns that cross a certain line of those two
metrics should be banned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
First of all, don't go full auto against zombies. hitting them anywhere other than the brain case is almsot entirely ineffective. Shot placement is the msot important thing when killing zombies.
Most of us don't live in a TV show or movie where we can put perfect headshots on moving targets. In real life, I think most people will need a bunch of shots to hit the brain

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Second, my point is that the reduction in machine gun violence was achieved through a national registry. When we were able to keep track of all the machine guns, noone sold their machine guns to criminals. similarly, when we keep track of all the firearms, noone will sell their guns to criminals.
We could do the same with assault weapons, but you said people will actively go against the law on that. I believe they won't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Wait?!?! What? Now who is being paranoid? The DOJ criticized their own study because they didn't like the results. If you think it takes a partisan study to support your case then you have already given up trying to win on the facts.
Don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about. I've seen you in the political debates, you KNOW that conservatives and Republicans are fucking crazy, especially now. No one should trust what they say for a long time. Now I don't know which DoJ report you're referring to, if its Obama's or not, so why don't you give me a link and we'll see whether or not it comes from a reliable source.

Obama is not partisan, or rather, he is the least partisan, high-profile politician of this very partisan time. Do you really think the GOP or conservatives have ANY credibility at all about anything? We just passed the Sequester deadline, something they supported, now they are calling it Obama's Sequester. Their partisanship reduced the financial rating of our country, they pretended we didn't fight two wars on a credit card, these guys are CRAZY. Don't talk to me about partisanship if you're going to give them any credibility at all, we might as well end this conversation. Obama and his DoJ is who I trust, I'm not going to read a Fox News story and think they are on the same level. Until Obama's CDC comes out with a report on gun violence, there is just noise

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
What about Hemenway at harvard? Is he tainted too? You are basically forum shopping your studies. You are basically saying that you will only accept a study that your opponents consider biased.
I don't know Hemenway, I'll have to look him up.

My opponents like the NRA and the GOP are shitheaded and insane. I don't give a damn what they think is biased, I KNOW they are biased, so their opinion means nothing.
  #840  
Old 03-01-2013, 09:07 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 26,854
Cracked.com has a relevant article today: 3 Reasons It's Time to Stop Taking the NRA Seriously
  #841  
Old 03-01-2013, 09:16 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Here it is! GunFail VII, now featuring a photo of our very own Kable.

http://m.dailykos.com/stories/1189175
  #842  
Old 03-01-2013, 09:21 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,993
What a cruel and vicious thing to say about someone. You don't, by any chance, publish a newsletter?
  #843  
Old 03-01-2013, 09:43 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
I love that he is posing with two Guitar Hero fake guitars. Seems appropriate, since he appears to do a lot of fantasizing about being a hero.
  #844  
Old 03-01-2013, 10:06 PM
levdrakon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 17,348
And where do Mexican drug cartels get their guns? From Houstonians who can pass background checks, of course.

Quote:
Houston is the single largest source of weapons shipped to the cartels. J Dewey Webb, the ATF special agent in charge of pursuing gun trafficking in southern Texas, said the cartels are attracted by the sheer number of gun outlets in the city, which run in to the many hundreds.

"They can come to the fourth largest city in the country and buy these guns and it's a lot harder for us to see what's going on because they can go to a different gun dealer every day of the month and do that for months and not hit the same gun dealer," said.

Kristen Rand, director of the Violence Policy Centre, which has made a study of weapons trafficking, said she believes that gun manufacturers and sellers are complicit.

"The gun industry is in complete denial. The gun dealers say they're not knowingly supplying traffickers. But they are knowingly selling the cartels' weapons of choice. If you look at some of the dealers in the border areas, all they sell are the traffickers' weapons of choice, and then they allegedly can't figure out how these guns are ending up in the hands of the cartels when their whole product line is targeted at that market," she said.
Freedom!

Last edited by levdrakon; 03-01-2013 at 10:08 PM.
  #845  
Old 03-02-2013, 01:29 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by YogSosoth View Post
Yeah but we're on a message board.
Yeah but fighting stupid with stupid is just a bad habit to get into if your a liberal, the other side has the numbers and the experience.

Quote:
No need to go that far. We can simply do what I have suggested and try that out for a few decades
We've tried it already for a decade, what makes you think another decade or two would make a difference? You know that guns stick around for more than a few decades right/?

Quote:
I find that logic to be odd, to say the least. Weren't you just talking about how if we ban some types of guns, only criminals will have them? Now you're saying if we license and register guns, then it won't affect just the law-abiding, but even criminals (by drying up the access). I think you're trying too hard to bend facts to your beliefs and it shows.
Licensing and registration would affect ALL legal guns and gun owners. An AWB would only limit the ability to buy a very tiny little slice of available guns. Thats why I think and AWB would do almost nothing to stem gun violence..

Quote:
If, using your plan, we license and register guns AND you believe it will choke criminal access, that shows that you believe gun regulations do work. There is nothing in that quoted paragraph above to suggest that banning some types of weapons such as assault weapons won't work. So if I'm reading you right, you do think banning assault weapons can choke criminal access to them, even if we only ban a few types, its just that you don't think that the law-abiding is disproportionately affected by it, even though you admit that eventually criminals will be affected too
I don't think and AWB would have much of an effect on access to AW by criminals unless it was coupled with confiscation. You're not suggesting confiscation are you? The reason licensing and registration works where an WB would not is because it affects all guns not just newly purchased guns.

Quote:
That is only a valid reason not to have the AWB if we assume all crimes are the same.

Don't you think that banning certain types of weapons, ones that are arguably more dangerous due to things like capacity and rapidity of fire would mitigate the severity of gun crimes? I'm not trying to turn the world into a perfect utopia, its too hard and I would miss the violent action movies. BUT! And this is a big but, if I can reduce the instances of a Sandy Hook, or reduce each Sandy Hook's severity, then I think that's a good thing EVEN THOUGH criminals can still commit crimes. As long as we reduce even more the rare instances of mass slaughter by restricting certain types of guns typically used in those slaughters, or the guns that can more easily produce those slaughters, then I think we have an obligation to do so.
You won't reduce the number of Sandy hooks with an AWB, there are too many other guns out there. The Virginia Tech shooter had two handguns.

Quote:
The AWB, however flawed, isn't designed to eliminate all gun violence. If it were, then I would agree with you in that it does nothing and is totally pointless since criminals have alternatives. But if we assume that an AWB without loopholes would ban one or more types of weapon used at Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech, then I'm all for it. That's why I like the AWB. I don't think it'll prevent all gun violence, just some types, and reduce the severity of others.
An AWB has NO DISACERNIBLE EFFECT. Both becaiuse there are so many AWs already out there and because there are so many alternatives to AW to commit mass murder (see Virginia Tech).

Quote:
People cannot own bombs or tanks right? Do you think, just because we cannot go on the type of rampage with legal bombs and tanks, and people can make or steal alternatives, that our rights are being hampered because we can't go on ebay and buy bomb?
First of all, you CAN own a tank. Second of all, these things are not protected by the second amendment. Finally , the second amendment is no more absolute than the first amendment, but its also no less so.

Quote:
If there is some way Hondas contribute to crimes, then even if Toyotas are an alternative, I would still ban Hondas. The less type of weapons available to criminals, the better.
It makes no difference to ban Hondas if Toyotas are freely available.

Quote:
I think that trying to get rid of some types of guns does contribute to the restrictions a criminal has to obtain one, that's why I support it. Its not my main focus, but almost everybody believes in the alternatives so there's nothing to debate and is boring to talk about
If the administration tried to get licensing and registration today, they would get NOWHERE with it. WHY? Because they wasted too much political capital and credibility chasing an ill advised AWB. They aren't even likely to get a comprehensive background check law, it is likely to be limited to requiring background checks at gun shows, I will likely still be able to sell guns to sketchy characters in the McDonalds parking lot without a background check as long as I don't KNOW he is a felon.

Quote:
Same argument for drugs. Doesn't matter to me, if it should be banned because its bad, then it should be banned. We can plug up the alternatives with other regulations.
Wait, now we are saying these are bad guns? How are these guns any more bad than a Remington 750 (a semi-automatic hunting rifle)?

Quote:
Its funny, with most bans, people aren't all gung-ho about violating the law. We banned drugs but most reasonable people don't say that's bad because there are drug dealers out there willing to break the law, but talk about guns then ever Ma and Pa Kettle says they'll just sell it illegally. Here's what I believe: if we banned assault weapons then most people will eventually fall in line and not sell these types to people. Why sell illegal merchandise when you can be throw in jail too? Your scenario speaks to an anti-government anarchist's dream, but it is not realistic. I think most dealers, if we close the loopholes, would be perfectly willing to sell only legal guns. As for the drug dealers/illegal gun sellers, there will always be some, but their existence doesn't mean that the banned object should be legal, it just means we should throw these people in jail
And criminals would be able to kill just as many people with those legal guns.

Banning a particular subset of guns is relatively ineffective without confiscation.

Quote:
I believe I've already mentioned it many times. My main point of contention is magazine sizes and rapidity of fire. All guns that cross a certain line of those two metrics should be banned.
Any weapon that fires more than one bullet per trigger pull is already banned. I think a magazine cap might have some effect, once again IF you confiscated all the over limit magazines already out there. In either event, your criteria doesn't capture Assault Weapons.

Quote:
Most of us don't live in a TV show or movie where we can put perfect headshots on moving targets. In real life, I think most people will need a bunch of shots to hit the brain
I was trying to be funny. And on a slow moving target I think I could a 5 inch target at 25 feet with about 3 seconds to aim, less if it was a rifle. And I'm not a particularly crack shot.

Quote:
We could do the same with assault weapons, but you said people will actively go against the law on that. I believe they won't.
I'm assuming law abiding citizens remain law abiding.

Quote:
Don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about. I've seen you in the political debates, you KNOW that conservatives and Republicans are fucking crazy, especially now. No one should trust what they say for a long time. Now I don't know which DoJ report you're referring to, if its Obama's or not, so why don't you give me a link and we'll see whether or not it comes from a reliable source.
And on this issue, the other side is just as fucking crazy.

Here are a few reports and DoJ memos:

www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_ban.htm

http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516...olicy-memo.pdf

Quote:
Obama is not partisan, or rather, he is the least partisan, high-profile politician of this very partisan time. Do you really think the GOP or conservatives have ANY credibility at all about anything? We just passed the Sequester deadline, something they supported, now they are calling it Obama's Sequester. Their partisanship reduced the financial rating of our country, they pretended we didn't fight two wars on a credit card, these guys are CRAZY. Don't talk to me about partisanship if you're going to give them any credibility at all, we might as well end this conversation. Obama and his DoJ is who I trust, I'm not going to read a Fox News story and think they are on the same level. Until Obama's CDC comes out with a report on gun violence, there is just noise
If you want to end the conversation then we might as well end this conversation because there is some stupidity coming from the left on this issue. The fact that Republicans are typically wrong on everything else doesn't mean that they are wrong on this. If you just want to believe that your side is never wrong on anything then, I don't know what to say.

Quote:
I don't know Hemenway, I'll have to look him up.
He runs the Harvard anti-violence center. He is very pro-gun control and he does plenty of research. My point is that the CDC is not the only possible source of research. I think its a bad idea to stifle research at the CDC but I understand what set off the desire to stifle them. Their reports did not seem objective and they were already being criticized in peer review. I don't think the NRA ban was necessary, shame would have eventually led them to publish a more balanced report andI believe they will do so in the future.

Quote:
My opponents like the NRA and the GOP are shitheaded and insane. I don't give a damn what they think is biased, I KNOW they are biased, so their opinion means nothing.
It wasn't just them. The CDC was criticized during peer review for presenting an argument for gun control based purely on correlation. Its the sort of argument that wouldn't stand scrutiny in Great Debates never mind a community of scholars.
  #846  
Old 03-02-2013, 07:22 AM
Ca3799 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tejas
Posts: 4,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
Here it is! GunFail VII, now featuring a photo of our very own Kable.

http://m.dailykos.com/stories/1189175
Gah- One just cannot 'un-see' that.

Given the number of folks who accidentally shoot themselves every week, that guy should probably move that gun a few inches away from his most valuable penis.
  #847  
Old 03-02-2013, 07:33 AM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
It wasn't just them. The CDC was criticized during peer review for presenting an argument for gun control based purely on correlation. Its the sort of argument that wouldn't stand scrutiny in Great Debates never mind a community of scholars.
Oh, I cannot wait to see the cite for this! Please, do share this evidence!

Also DA, I'm exceptionally surprised that you endorse the Cook & Ludwig DoJ report on the NSPOF. They are quite biased in their views on defensive gun uses! Here's some selected quotes from your cite (bolding mine):

Quote:
This surprising figure is caused in part by a few respondents reporting large numbers of defensive gun uses during the year; for example, one woman reported 52!
Quote:
For example, in only a small fraction of rape and robbery attempts do victims use guns in self-defense. It does not make sense, then, that the NSPOF estimate of the number of rapes in which a woman defended herself with a gun was more than the total number of rapes estimated from NCVS (exhibit 8). For other crimes listed in exhibit 8, the results are almost as absurd: the NSPOF estimate of DGU robberies is 36 percent of all NCVS-estimated robberies, while the NSPOF estimate of DGU assaults is 19 percent of all aggravated assaults. If those percentages were close to accurate, crime would be a risky business indeed!
Quote:
NSPOF estimates also suggest that 130,000 criminals are wounded or killed by civilian gun defenders. That number also appears completely out of line with other, more reliable statistics on the number of gunshot cases.
Quote:
In line with the theory that many DGU reports are exaggerated or falsified, we note that in some of these reports, the respondents' answers to the followup items are not consistent with respondents' reported DGUs. For example, of the 19 NSPOF respondents meeting the more restrictive Kleck and Gertz DGU criteria (exhibit 7), 6 indicated that the circumstance of the DGU was rape, robbery, or attack—but then responded "no" to a subsequent question: "Did the perpetrator threaten, attack, or injure you?”
Quote:
Should the number of DGUs serve as a measure of the public benefit of private gun possession, even in principle? When it comes to DGUs, is more better? That is doubtful, for two kinds of reasons:

• First, people who draw their guns to defend themselves against perceived threats are not necessarily innocent victims; they may have started fights themselves or they may simply be mistaken about whether the other persons really intended to harm them. Survey interviewers must take the respondent's word for what happened and why; a competent police investigation of the same incident would interview all parties before reaching a conclusion.
[...]
Such consequences presumably have an important effect on criminal victimization rates but are in no way reflected in the DGU count.
  #848  
Old 03-02-2013, 11:54 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
Oh, I cannot wait to see the cite for this! Please, do share this evidence!
Here are some articles:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...earch-funding/

Quote:
There was a very good reason for the gun violence research funding ban. Virtually all of the scores of CDC-funded firearms studies conducted since 1985 had reached conclusions favoring stricter gun control. This should have come as no surprise, given that ever since 1979, the official goal of the CDC’s parent agency, the U.S. Public Health Service, had been “…to reduce the number of handguns in private ownership”, starting with a 25% reduction by the turn of the century.”
http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/16/th...c-health-resea

Quote:
In Reason's April 1997 cover story, gun policy scholar Don Kates and two co-authors persuasively argued that "public health research on gun violence," as distinct from research by criminologists, is anti-gun propaganda in pseudoscientific disguise, starting from the premise that firearms are disease vectors that need to be controlled by the government:
Quote:
Contrary to [the] picture of dispassionate scientists under assault by the Neanderthal NRA and its know-nothing allies in Congress, serious scholars have been criticizing the CDC's "public health" approach to gun research for years. In a presentation at the American Society of Criminology's 1994 meeting, for example, University of Illinois sociologist David Bordua and epidemiologist David Cowan called the public health literature on guns "advocacy based on political beliefs rather than scientific fact."
Quote:
They found that "reports with findings not supporting the position of the journal are rarely cited," "little is cited from the criminological or sociological field," and the articles that are cited "are almost always by medical or public health researchers."
Quote:
Further, Bordua and Cowan said, "assumptions are presented as fact: that there is a causal association between gun ownership and the risk of violence, that this association is consistent across all demographic categories, and that additional legislation will reduce the prevalence of firearms and consequently reduce the incidence of violence." They concluded that "[i]ncestuous and selective literature citations may be acceptable for political tracts, but they introduce an artificial bias into scientific publications. Stating as fact associations which may be demonstrably false is not just unscientific, it is unprincipled." In a 1994 presentation to the Western Economics Association, State University of New York at Buffalo criminologist Lawrence Southwick compared public health firearm studies to popular articles produced by the gun lobby: "Generally the level of analysis done on each side is of a low quality. The papers published in the medical literature (which are uniformly anti-gun) are particularly poor science."
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/cdc-pol...esearch/nTZnf/

Quote:
“It was mostly political junk science,” retorts Dr. Miguel Faria Jr., a former professor of neurosurgery and editor of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. The CDC, he said, started from the premise “that guns were bad, had no benefits, that guns and bullets were pathogens that needed to be eradicated or at least severely restricted from the civilian population.” - See more at: http://www.ajc.com/news/news/cdc-pol....HR5BJ1ZE.dpuf
Quote:
In 1995, Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president, told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: “The problem that I see with what the CDC is doing is that they are not doing medicine, they’re doing politics. And they shouldn’t be doing politics.” - See more at: http://www.ajc.com/news/news/cdc-pol....HR5BJ1ZE.dpuf
So you can see why there was objection to CDC research where there wasn't objection to DoJ reserach.

Quote:
Also DA, I'm exceptionally surprised that you endorse the Cook & Ludwig DoJ report on the NSPOF. They are quite biased in their views on defensive gun uses! Here's some selected quotes from your cite (bolding mine):
And yet the NRA didn't get the DOJ research on guns shut down. Fancy that.

The fact that the DoJ is critically analyzing their own findings is not objectionable. If I were the DOJ, I would have had professional pollsters design the poll. Asking if you had had a defensive gun use in the last year and following up with a question about defensive gun use in your lifetime is bad polling. You ask the more general question first (and perhaps even throw it away), THEN you ask if they had defensive gun use in the last year. You are more likely to get an honest answer to the second one once you have cleared away some of the underbrush with the first question. However, there wasn't a huge NRA uproar that the DoJ didn't take these surveys at face value.

I think the CDC can do valuable research on gun violence, they bring an epidemiological perspective that criminologists and sociologists might not share but they need to get their preconceived notions out of their heads before they start their research.
  #849  
Old 03-02-2013, 01:13 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,993
And they would prove this to you, how? What might they do to convince you that all such preconceived notions are vacated and absent?
  #850  
Old 03-02-2013, 03:44 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
DA, you specifically claimed that a "peer review" of the CDC waa conducted and was critical of their use of correlational analyses.

Your cites are to op ed and.blog opinion pieces that do not support your assertion.

By the way, I've presented at ASC multiple times. A former ASC president is a friend of mine. Friends and colleagues are epidemiologists and criminologists.

You're spouting gibberish.

Last edited by Hentor the Barbarian; 03-02-2013 at 03:45 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:02 AM.

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 © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017