I’m actually supportive of nuclear power, but one would have to be an idiot to think that an incident like Chernobyl, or one literally closer to home (Three Mile Island), shouldn’t legitimately raise concerns about safety.
One shudders to wonder what would be a legitimate cause for concern in your opinion if something like Chernobyl is nothing more than an example of “ridiculous fear mongering”!
It’s nothing like the assault weapon ban, they banned all Jarts, not just the scary looking ones.
Yeah, does it seem odd to you that having a gun in the home increases the chances of being killed by means other than firearms? I wonder if that says anything.
Facts are apparently invisible to you or did you miss the part about an assault weapons ban having no discernible effect on gun violence. Sure it affected how many crimes were committed by the banned guns but it had no effect on gun violence because people just used other guns to commit the same crime.
I feel a bit differently about magazine caps than AWB. I think a magazine cap could have some sort of marginal effect on in mass murders (as rare as they are), maybe enough of an effect to justify an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms BUT the last magazine cap simply resulted in criminals using any one of the tens of millions of “high capacity” magazines already in circulation. So unless you can consfiscate all the magazines or get them put on the NFA list, I don’t see it doing much good.
I have analogized the AWB to partial birth abortion ban and the voter ID laws.
You expend a lot of energy and political capital on something that barely exists and just riles up the other side (I think voting rights are a LOT more important than gun rights and I think that voter ID laws are noxious for many other reasons as well but they didn’t work out so well for any of the jurisdictions that tried them. Did voter ID laws flip any elections or did they just create even higher turnout in the targetted group?).
If I understand the blurb correctly they oversampled some demographics and then corrected for the oversampling. Sounds reasonable but there is a reason they oversampled those demographics. Any demographic can be granularized into a smaller group, they wanted a more accurate read ont his particular small group for a reason.
Isn’t there some evidence that having a firearm in the home correlates to being murdered (even if not by the firearm you keep in the home or not by any firearm at all) because other risk factors also correlate with higher gun ownership? Isn’t this where that multivariate stuff comes in and clears things up for us?
I don’t think any of us care much if you are outgunned. Most of us would probably prefer that criminal everywhere were outgunned. A few of us just don’t want the government telling us that we have to be outgunned.
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
I’m actually supportive of nuclear power, but one would have to be an idiot to think that an incident like Chernobyl, or one literally closer to home (Three Mile Island), shouldn’t legitimately raise concerns about safety.
[/QUOTE]
Concerned? Certainly. People should be concerned about a lot of things…most of which they aren’t. How many died at TMI again? What was it? Zero? And how likely is it that something like Chernobyl could happen in the US or nearly any other non-communist country? Nearly zero as well, right? So, yeah, people should be concerned…but rationally concerned. Sadly, the anti-nuclear groups in the US and Europe/Japan etc have fermented a totally irrational level of public panic and knee jerk rejection of all things nuclear.
And I shudder to wonder what else you consider legitimate cause for concern if you are worried about the massively improbable event of a Chernobyl happening in the US. But fear monger away, man, if that’s what floats thy boat. Personally, I think people should be a tad more concerned with the 10’s of thousands of deaths due to coal fired power plants that happen every year, instead of worrying about highly improbable Chernobyl style scenarios, but that’s just me.
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
I have analogized the AWB to partial birth abortion ban and the voter ID laws.
You expend a lot of energy and political capital on something that barely exists and just riles up the other side (I think voting rights are a LOT more important than gun rights and I think that voter ID laws are noxious for many other reasons as well but they didn’t work out so well for any of the jurisdictions that tried them. Did voter ID laws flip any elections or did they just create even higher turnout in the targetted group?).
[/QUOTE]
I agree, as analogies go that’s what I was getting at. The whole abortion thing is actually a good analogy in fact…you have a small group of dedicated people who want to overturn it, while much of the rest of the population simply wants various levels of regulation (or none at all). I think most folks who participate in these threads on the anti-gun side would be horrified if the anti-abortion folks used similar tactics as has been used in the past to manipulate the courts and basically circumvent the process to push through their agenda, despite the fact that a large percentage of Americans wouldn’t be for making abortions outright illegal across the board. I would be horrified if that was the case at least.
Jarts is a great example. The difference between assault weapons, cars, bikes, skateboards, etc., we always here from the gun control crowd is that assault weapons were designed to kill people. The rest wasn’t so the rest should be kept legal while the guns prohibited. That argument never made much sense to me and of course Jarts weren’t designed to kill people but…
Basically it shows that gun control advocates want to prohibit what they can, using whatever excuse they can, without much care of consistent reasoning.
You saying it doesn’t make it a fact. Can you cite any evidence that supports your assertion?
Seems pretty obvious to me, though I’m sure someone will be along shortly to give you a cite (which you might or might not believe), as several such cites have been used in these seemingly endless threads repeatedly. Considering that gun crime has been on the decline since the early 90’s at a time when gun sales and liberalization (heh) of gun laws have been relaxed, however, seems evident to me that it’s not stricter gun control laws that have saved us, but that something else is a factor. YMMV of course (it almost certainly does, considering where I stand on this issue :p), or you might not believe that gun crime has been dropping since the early 90’s, or that gun regulations have been relaxed…or gods know what else you might not believe. If you are talking specifically about the ‘assault weapons ban’, there has been similar dynamics involved. It was never a major factor in the numbers of deaths (I don’t think it ever topped a 1000 per year), has steadily dropped (starting before the ban, continuing through the ban, and continuing again after the ban was no more), at the same time sales of ‘assault weapons’ has risen and the regulatory environment has relaxed.
Well, like you saw the study was published in 2004 and they picked 1993 to run their analysis on. It just so happens that 1993 was the year with the highest gun violence in recent history.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg
I mean look at the graph, 1993 is the absolute peak, and I can’t imagine it is just coincidence.
If I wanted to do a study and say that guns are bad, that’s just the year I would use. If they used more recent 2000-2004 data they might not have been lucky enough to find any significant number of homicides. That’s what I man by cherry picked.
People die from skiing. Maybe we should ban that. People die from race car, driving professional football, sky diving, surfing and a bunch of other stuff. Should we ban all those things too?
Why do you keep insisting that gun owners are mere pawns in under the influence of this de facto I dustry lobbying group when this industry lobbying group enforces discipline by boycotting outfits lile smith & wesson. Thats not like any industry lobbying group I have ever heard of. Do you have trouble wrapping your mind around the notion that some peppletake ALL their constituional rights seriously?
There was a study that was mamdated by the same legislation that implemented the AWB. It found no discernible effect on gun violence. A more recent study on the AWB by one of the authors found no discernible effect on gun violence.
Im sure its just a coincidence.
There’s little need for anyone to repeat themselves with you and your endless lists. You will never comprehend, apparently.
Because the gun manufacturers fund the NRA, and the NRA makes a top priority of getting legislation passed that serves manufacturers with no benefit to individuals. Because the NRA opposes legislation that large majorities of its members favor. Pawns is a good word for it.
Really? Your cite is just saying that there’s some study somewhere? Come on. You assured me that you have all the facts on your side, yet here we are after however many pages, and after repeated prompting, and the best you can do is tell me that there is evidence somewhere?
I think someone told you all the facts were on your side.
When it comes to research, you and Kable just will not get it. Perhaps someone else can explain how large national survey data is collected for generalized use and made available to any researchers? It is no coincidence. The survey was conducted in 1993. No matter when anyone ever analyzed it or will analyze it, the year it was collected can never change.
However, it is worth mentioning that the NRA, in apparent service to its individual members, blocked funding that would have supported new and specific data collection between 1993 and 2004. Thus there is a very good reason why researchers interested in gun homicides would have to find existing data sets somewhere.
Just having laws won’t do anything. Mrs. Lanza had every legal right to own a gun, she would have passed every background check, followed all the laws, but it cost her, her son and 25 others their lives. If people don’t make sure the gun they own isn’t used for legal purposes no law will help. People have to make sure the guns are in a safe place, from their children, or others that can get a hold of them. If one is held responsible (even if they have a high fence, to keep people out of a pool) then they should surely be responsible for any weapon they have.
Criminals, or the mentally ill do not care who they kill. The news just had a story of a 4 year old killing a 6 year old…How could they get a gun? Not in a owner’s home who was responsible!
Ms. Lanza definitely needs to be charged with some sort of negligence for allowing her guns to be stolen after she was murdered.
You keep saying that. What percent of NRA revenue do you think comes from manufacturers?
Heck Hentor, it’s on wiki. Inform yourself.
[quoteI think someone told you all the facts were on your side.When it comes to research, you and Kable just will not get it. Perhaps someone else can explain how large national survey data is collected for generalized use and made available to any researchers? It is no coincidence. The survey was conducted in 1993. No matter when anyone ever analyzed it or will analyze it, the year it was collected can never change.[/quote]
So you really think 1993 is a coincidence? You really think oversampling young people and minorities and then making general conclusions about the data is the proper way of doing things? You really think in light of the decline in homicides since then, the 1993 data is even relevant? You really have never heard of bias in research? Hint, there are a whole lot of ways it happens.
Saw on the news last night a couple things that bugged me. The first is Obama is flying in Sandy Hook parents on Air Force One to testify before congress. I think their views have already been well established in the media, and in fact some of the parents are not in favor of more gun control, but I doubt they got a free trip at taxpayer expense. Basically we are paying for infringement of our 2nd amendment rights.
The second is Michelle Obama speaking about gun control. She told a story about the senseless shooting of a young woman in Chicago because the shooter thought she was a gang member. It is a terrible tragedy, but no doubt the gun used in the crime was already illegal and the shooting was gang related. No amount of gun laws that penalize law-abiding citizens would have prevented that shooting, so to me it’s a tragic story but not relevant.
The whole thing is just emotional manipulation in my opinion.
I come from a gun-friendly state, and if my elected representatives decide that Virginia and every other state in the USA should be subject to new and pointless gun restrictions because of some knee-jerk reaction then I know exactly who I won’t be voting for the next time they are up for election.
10s of millions of dollars is the majority in an organization that brings in hundreds of millions per year?
Yes, when something is more than half, it becomes the majority. It’s a statistics related concept, I know, but it’s a commonly understood one.
Why should people bother to go and get evidence and put it right in your hands if you are unwilling or unable to read it?
I see you know about as much about the NRA as you do about firearms in general. Members give more money then just their dues and fees. And those round up programs? People are asked each time if they want to contribute, and they say yes. That’s not industry money.
So like I said, your industry contributions are still considerably less than gun owner contributions. Not that all that industry money doesn’t come from gun owners in the first place.