Cite?
Cite?
And while you’re at it, how about providing a cite for any proposed legislation for an outright gun ban?
How do sleep with all that paranoia?
You don’t???
Astonishing!
Oh come on, DC, I read the 'f’ing newspapers! And I don’t keep them.
You never responded to my requests for cites of your allegations, why should I respond to yours, anyway?
Anyway, there was a book written by two University professors recently who did the research (they were originally anti-gun, I understand, but didn’t ‘cook’ the results when the discovered the correlation between gun ownership and a drop in crime rates). I’ll try to find it for you. It has been cited in a gun-related thread here within the last 6 months, so it’s not that hard to find, if you’re really interested.
Really, this is getting like saying there’s a force called gravity and having some dope yell “CITE?”
I don’t know and don’t care if legislation for a total gun ban has been introduced. It hasn’t been passed, though, and that’s what matters to me (and I don’t even own a gun! – but I do believe in freedom). I do know, however, and again it is common knowledge, the Senator Diane Feinstein want’s to introduce such legislation, and will when she thinks the wind is blowing in the right direction.
And how do I sleep with all that paranoia? Thought you didn’t subscribe to Freud? Paranoia has been renamed vigilance.
I’ll try to find that other cite for you. In the meantime why don’t you try to find the cite I requested – the ones that equate gun ownership with penis whatever…
Snakespirit:
Could you please provide me some background on the assertion that “violent crime rates are skyrocketing in Britian, New Zealand and Australia,” and that said rise “correspond[s] with the increasingly prohibitive gun laws there?”
Also, I’d like to see the cite for which Dio asked, quantifying the link between increased firearm ownership in the US with decreased violent crime.
OK, that was a roundabout way of saying “cite, please,” but I’d be much obliged.
Oh, and not to be an annoyance but:
I’m afraid that’s not really common knowledge. At least, not mine. What has she done and said that makes this a fact?
Ok, Snake, so basically you admit that you can’t support your assertions?
I never made any factual assertions, btw. I just expressed an opinion and I clearly labelled it as an opinion.
Does that serve as cite enough that Feinstein wants firearms banned and would introduce legislation to do it if she thought it had a chance of passing by even one vote?
It may not be ‘common knowledge’, but I’ve never seen that quote disproven.
As for the proof that states enacting right-to-carry laws seeing a drop in violent crime, take a look at the work of John Lott, specifically More Guns, Less Crime.
Thanks, catsix.
Well, I’d like to see that in context. Anyone know if 60 Minutes keeps transcripts?
But I’ll happily accept that she would have been willing to ban firearms in 1995, and have no reason to assume her position has changed dramatically in a decade. At the risk of sounding pedantic, it doesn’t establish that she’s champing at the bit for an anti-gun revolution in the Senate to introduce ban legislation now.
I’ll do that, as soon as I have some free time (won’t be in the next week, unfortunately). Can you give me some more background? Who is Mr. Lott, on what does he base his conclusions, have they been corroborated, that sort of thing. Thanks.
Nope. Sorry. That’s not what I asked for. I asked for actual, proposed legislation. It doesn’t exist.
Elected officials harbor all kinds of ridiculous or even horrific personal opinions. There are folks like Rick Santorum who support sodomy laws. That doesn’t mean they’re going to get any legislation passed.
An outright ban is simply not a legitimate fear.
Not that living without a gun is anything to fear either.
What’s so astonishing about it?
First you asked for proof that she wanted to ban firearms at all. You changed your tune when it became evident that you were going to lose that challenge.
Now you’re changing it again.
There’s only one reason she didn’t introduce a bill for a total ban, and she herself states what that reason is: the votes weren’t there.
If you are not expecting a visitor and there is a knock on the door I assume you take your loaded gun with you.
Unless you’re prepared to shoot at all times doesn’t the baddie nearly always have the drop on you?
I don’t believe sitting around home with a loaded gun to ward off intruders is cowardice. I wouldn’t rule out paranoia though.
I’m not changing anything. Here’s what I asked for:
You provided nothing but a rhetorical statement from one legislator (Senator feinstein is treally quite the boogyman to you gun lovers, isn’t she?)
My point still stands. There is no legislative attempt to take away your guns. Your fear is irrational.
I look through the peep hole in the door before I decide whether to answer it or not.
And no, not always. Sometimes when they break in they make a metric fuckton of noise.
Stating very publicly that she would put through legislation to ban firearms provided she had a prayer of getting enough votes caused her to paint herself as the boogeyman to firearms owners.
Your ‘point’? What point? That you will dismiss every statement by any legislator that involves their desire to ban handguns unless the one single solitary ‘ban them all’ bill is on the floor with their names on it?
Those who do want bans know they will not get enough votes for one bill that’s an outright ban, so instead they pull crap like the so-called ‘assault weapons ban’ in an effort to go for a death of a thousand slices. What’s irrational about recognizing what’s happening?
No, no, DC, your making those stupid ASSumptions again!
Don’t put words in my mouth!
Here’s some cites – since you’re too lazy to view previous threads that have described this.
Crime rate vs. gun laws:
A Christian site
[www.essay.org/school/english/guncontrolus.doc+“gun+owner”+“crime+rate”&hl=en&start=8]A](http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:OJ7kDaVMfksJ:[url) research paper
[Crime Statistics for The Eagle and the Crown](http://www.truepatriot.com/crime_stats_page.html)
The UK ‘Telegraph’ articleThe UK ‘Telegraph’ article
The national Review
And I could go on all day, but
The book I mentioned:
More Guns, Less Crime
The Author’s Website
Social Science Research Network
And regarding efforts to ban all guns:
the goal stated by Clinton ban sponsor Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), on CBS` “60 Minutes”-- “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.”
Review Journal
The Claremont Institute
Oh, and that cite on legislation for a total ban (well an almost total ban, anyway).
URL=http://www.clintongunban.com/FactSheets.aspx?i=144&a=Fact%20Sheet]H.R. 2038/S. 1431
It’s all covered there, if you read carefully.
Geez, I even learned a lot I didn’t know!
Guns banned, violent crime rate goes up.
Concealed carry enabled, violent crime rate goes down.
Senator Diane Feinstein not only wants to, but recently tried to introduce new legislation for a U.S. Gun ban (it failed).
Slippery slope.
Yep, and you’re sliding down it, head first.
But don’t worry, there’s no evidence that the short stop at the end will kill you.
Don’t be paranoid, now, it’ll disturb your sleep.
Crap cites, Snake.
You haven’t produced any proposed legislation for an all out ban, just another hysterical page about Dianne Feinstein’s quote on 60 Minutes.
The “studies” about guns and crime (by pro-gun cranks) show drops in crime rates but fail to connect them with guns. I’ve seen them before. They’re propaganda. They don’t mention that crime also went down in states without crap like concealed carry laws. They hypothesize connections to guns without proving them.
There is no definitive study showing that more nuts with guns reduces crime, just opportunistic attempts to connect dots that don’t exist.
Since this isn’t IMHO, keep your opinions to yourself, unless you can back them up with facts. This is Great Debates, where we debate using factual, provable material. Using slurs like saying gun owners suffer from penis envy does not belong in this venue.
Sorry all, I’m not trying to be a junior mod wannabe here, but I don’t necessarily want to turn someone in either, so it’s like ‘fair warning.’ DC, get a clue.
Easy, there. There’s been only one legislator cited AFAIK.
Hey, read the OP. I was ASKED to give my opinion. I was also asked in an email to answer this this thread, so I did. I didn’t choose the forum for the thread. if you have a problem with me answering a question specifically addressed to me then you beef is with the asker, not with me.