exactly WHAT has that got to do with anything?
and you might get further with non-“gun nuts” if you quit pushing the NRA - it has done more to alienate most of us than all the crazies-with-guns ever could.
-I believe in layman’s terms, that’s referred to as “a legitimate question”. A question is an interrogative posed to another person in order to obtain desired information.
So, is it your position that only those who have handled firearms are qualified to speak on the issue of public policy regarding firearms?
(another legitimate question)
Well no secret here, since I’ve stated it several times in this thread. I have never handled a gun. Doubt I ever will. Didn’t serve in the military. Don’t hunt. No desire to shoot things. Don’t know my individual guns any better han I know batting averages. Which aint too well. I’m your basic namby pamby nerd. But as I said
And I know how to do that. Lots I don’t know about but scientific analysis of medical journal articles I do quite well.
So let’s see … so far the bias includes the (politically conservative) AMA, the (somewhat liberal) AAP, the (flagship medical journal) NEJM, the Violence Policy Center, the committee for violence prevention of the UN, and the (internationally respected) CDC. Seems like anyone who is qualified to understand and analyze epidemiologic data, hell all of medicine, is in on the conspiricy.
This debate has devolved into a pat repitition of the same points. I’m not going to repeat myself ad nauseum (and nauseated by this have I become). My responses to your points have been stated already. Thanks to those who have engaged in an open minded give and take in an attempt to gain some balance on this issue.
Well no secret here, since I’ve stated it several times in this thread. I have never handled a gun. Doubt I ever will. Didn’t serve in the military. Don’t hunt. No desire to shoot things. Don’t know my individual guns any better han I know batting averages. Which aint too well. I’m your basic namby pamby nerd. But as I said
And I know how to do that. Lots I don’t know about but scientific analysis of medical journal articles I do quite well.
So let’s see … so far the bias includes the (politically conservative) AMA, the (somewhat liberal) AAP, the (flagship medical journal) NEJM, the Violence Policy Center, the committee for violence prevention of the UN, and the (internationally respected) CDC. Seems like anyone who is qualified to understand and analyze epidemiologic data, hell all of medicine, is in on the conspiricy.
This debate has devolved into a pat repitition of the same points. I’m not going to repeat myself ad nauseum (and nauseated by this have I become). My responses to your points have been stated already. Thanks to those who have engaged in an open minded give and take in an attempt to gain some balance on this issue.
-Did I say that? Better get that knee checked again.
In the context, I was indeed asking a legit question- had he ever fired a gun. That was in response to his statement that doing so “would” bore him to tears.
As a continuation of my question, I’ll say that, chances are he’d enjoy a short trip to the range. No, plinking and target shooting isn’t for everyone, just as Pediatrics isn’t for everyone wishing to become a doctor, and the Chevy Avalanche isn’t most car buyers’ cup of tea.
As a one-time event, however- you know, to open ones’ mind to new thoughts and experiences- I believe he would enjoy it. No, I doubt he’d ever go back, and I hold no illusions he’d run right out and buy a rifle of his own, but for that one day, he might find himself surprised how fun a calm day at the range can be.
-You’re welcome, always a pleasure. See you next thread. 
Since you used your 'legitimate question" as a challenge, I interpreted it to deny DSeid the right to speak/hold an opinion.
My assessment is unchanged.
Have you ever treated a victim of a gunshot?
Ever try to re-construct the face so the family could have an open-casket service?
-Your interpretation was wrong. Please point to where I said “until you’ve shot one, you can’t speak for them”. Or for that matter, “against them”.
-Nope. Never been in a gunfight, never known anyone who’s been in a gunfight (except one or two police officers over the years) never even pointed a gun at anyone.
I have, however, had a friend of mine stabbed nearly to death- he still wears extensive scarring on his neck and has somewhat reduced mobility there. I don’t see either of you calling for additional measures to keep knives out of “punks” hands- and knives can be bought mailorder, no paperwork, by anyone, at any age. Hell, grocery stores carry kitchen knives 12" long. Convenience stores have little displays of pocketknives right next to the lighters by the cash registers.
Set your emotion-laden strawman argument down before somebody says something stupid, eh?
Oh, and DSeid, just as a quick followup:
AMA President Admits Bias
UN Committee for Violence Prevention: “This is not the end. This is the opening skirmish of a war," announced retired Rep. Charles Pashayan (R., Calif., 1979-91), a U.S. delegate to the July 2001 U.N. Small Arms Conference. Pashayan warned that issues of restricting private ownership of firearms, and of banning gun sales to persons not authorized by a government…”
Centers For Disease Control: "Based on studies and leadership from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the objective has broadened so that it now includes banning and confiscation of all handguns, and restrictive licensing of owners of other firearms, with the goal of eliminating firearms from American life, excepting (perhaps) only a small elite of extremely wealthy collectors, hunters or target shooters as in Europe[…]"
More on the CDC: "*The CDC gave a grant (the exact amount has not been disclosed) to the Trauma Foundation, an anti-gun group, which used it to produce an anti-gun newsletter. The letter, “What Advocates Can Do,” advised readers to “organize a picket at gun manufacturing sites” and to “work for campaign finance reform to weaken the gun lobby’s political clout.” This tax-supported pamphleteering drew a complaint from Rep. Bob Barr, (R-GA), and Satcher was forced to admit the grant violated anti-lobbying provisions and was inappropriate. *
So yes, I feel I have reason to believe most of those august institutions you mention, are indeed “in on the conspiracy”, as you put it.
Great Sites!
got any from reputable sources?
until then, it’s just another round of NRA-v-World.
guess where most folks stand?
p.s. - since this thread deginerated into a bullshit restatement-of-obvious-positions, expect your strawmen to be countered.
This isn’t the first time someone has asked you to actually read what was said before you post. But here goes:
Read what was said before you post.
He specifically commented on how DSeid was “sure” they’d have no fun with any firearm related recreational activities, without even having handled a firearm. He did not say that one had to fire a firearm in order to analyze their effects on society, and so your implication, that one must know a victim of gun violence to understand gun control (assumably) is a gross (intentional?) distortion of what he said.
**
Nice, no substance. No indication of why these sites are disreputable, nor any guidelines as to what would be reputable - but just a blatant attack without substance.
Perhaps you’d like to add some?
**
“until then, it’s just another round of HCI-v-World”.
**
guess which number I’m thinking of.
What strawmen, out of curiosity?
Perhaps you’d like to start actually addressing points, rather than just giving a rather lame and generic dismissive response.
-I don’t have to guess, it’s quite obvious. There are roughly 4.2 million NRA members, and around 120,000 members of the recently-renamed-again Handgun Control, Inc, the self-described “most powerful” anti-gun lobbying organization.
Doc: I wish I could again work up the energy to soundly thrash a gun controller’s [non]cites.
But I did note with some interest that DSeid cited a study from the International Journal of Epidemiology, which did indeed do a cross-national study of homicide and suicide rates among nations.
Oddly enough, the numbers they show in their data tables didn’t quite jibe with their conclusions; there were numerous nations with near-zero rates of gun ownership that had equal or higher rates of suicide.
There were also numerous nations with high rates of gun ownership and near-zero rates of homicides and suicides.
And yet they concluded that nations with high rates of gun ownership have higher rates of suicides.
They completely overlooked things like the ethnic mix of various countries; education and economic equality of opportunity; apportionment of incomes; disparity between “rich,” “middle class,” and “poor.” Arrest rates. Conviction rates. Incarceration terms. Population densities. Political stability.
Can anyone here say “foregone conclusion?”
If we have all of these educated, intelligent hotshot doctors and researchers, how come we can’t get a study that happens to include all, or at least some, of those factors along with mere availability of firearms?
Oh, wait. We did.
His name was Lott, and he tried to show how More Guns becomes Less Crime.
Too bad he’s just a “whore,” shilling for, well, whatever it is he’s supposedly shilling for.
I just love the fact that, by the terms and conditions of Those Who Would Control Guns, any research or person who supports firearms rights is just plain wrong and biased, while anyone who supports more gun control is, by definition and automatically, correct and well-reasoned.
Can anyone here say “hypocrisy?”
It’s hard to hold a debate when one side isn’t even listening.
No kidding!
4.2 mil in NRA, chanting “me want guns. me have constitutional right to gun. any gun. anywhere. any time”.
“just enforce existing laws (which we opposed, and are trying like hell to get repealed)”
“guns don’t kill people, people kill people”
“god, guns, and guts”
does it really come as a surprise that such arguments get dismissed?
so where is the NRA on teflon-coated bullets these days? (yes, I know, “designed by a cop” - like being a cop makes one the ultimate authority on reasonability of projectile design.
Do you want me to make a nice fresh post commemerating the uncivil comments from you (or the gun control side as a whole, happyheathen probably merits a full page)? And you still refuse to answer basic questions like what your safe storage proposal entails, or to provide sites for your assertions such as your assertion that guns stolen from private residences are a significant supply of black market guns, all the while continuing to rail against gun owners for not properly securing guns and for allegedly supplying the black market.
So, it’s just your “belief” that affordable guns are designed for criminal purposes? Yes, anyone who’s poor or who applies a budget to something evil like guns must be planning to commit a crime! I suppose you’re just using GD for witnessing, since simply stating that you’ll stand behind an irrational belief doesn’t exactly make for a good debate.
I’ll stand by the belief that people who find something suspicious in modern industry making affordable goods for ordinary men are the ones with grand-scale criminal intent. Maybe it is just appearances.
What does ‘locked up tight’ mean? This seems to happen in every single gun control thread - some GC type says ‘this one-word thing should be a rule’, but then refuses to actually tell anyone what he means by it even when asked multiple times. My house is locked up at night, and that level of security is enough for most people’s children. Does one of those quick-access safes meet your definition, or does it need to be a bank safe, or in a police station, or what? This is not a hard question to answer, yet you’ve refused to provide a substantive answer in the 3 or 4 times that I’ve asked to simply explain what you mean. Just using a reasonable-sounding term like ‘safe storage’ doesn’t mean that your proposal is reasonable, and your repeated refusal to answer what you mean by safe storage except in vague generalities and accusations of irresponsibility tells me that ‘safe storage’ isn’t as ‘common sense’ as you would like us to believe.
And from my last post: Not that I really expect an answer given your lack of responses to previous questions, but what good would having a gun in a safe do if some thief were to break in while I was around? Couldn’t he just threaten me (I’m unarmed in this scenario, remember) to get me to open the safe anyway?
I’m not going to hit on the cites individually, though I will note that, as Doc Nickel pointed out, you included a cite directly from the Brady Bunch (with their ‘Violence Policy Center’ name) - hardly a mark of someone collecting objective data.
And, as I expected, the studies show CORRELATION, not causation - I can dig out the FBI numbers on violent crime, and show a correlation between being black and committing violent crime, but I don’t conclude that we need fewer blacks from it. As has been pointed out by others, the studies on suicides simply ignore their own data (Japan has very low gun ownership and a much, much higher rate of suicide than the US, and switzerland has much higher gun ownership (near 100%) yet lower rates of crime). All the homicide studies really show is that other ‘developed’ (for often carefully picked definitions of developed) nations have a lower murder rate than the US. None of them actually lead to the conclusion that gun ownership causes a higher murder rate.
And if we want to look at violent crime instead of murder alone (since violent crime is much more prevalent than just murder), we see that higher violent crime is correlated with lower gun ownership rates (for example, looking at the US, UK, and Australia). How many more rapes, assaults, and muggings do you want to endure for each murder (the majority of which are committed by ‘young punks’ against ‘young punks’) that you reduce?
Which one matched states and regions within the US? I’d be especially interested in one that compares, say, Vermont (least restrictive gun laws) with, say, states like Illinois, New York, Maryland, Mass., and other states with highly restrictive gun laws. Everything I’ve seen on the US shows that murder rates are higher in localities with restrictive gun control laws.
Except for the crime rate differences between different parts of the US, of course, or the crime rates after shall-issue concealed carry, or any of the other evidence you don’t want to pay attention to.
Well, cite the ‘evidence’ supporting that then. None of your cites actually showed any negative consequences of wide gun availability.
Except that you just blow off any comparisons of different populations within the US (which are much more closely matched than between the Us and other countries) by claiming that gun control measures don’t work unless they’re nationwide.
Oh, although I keep asking you, what portion of the handguns used in homicide were stolen from someone who purchased it legally?
And, as I keep asking you, what portion of the guns in the hands of ‘young punks’ come from theft from private individuals? You can keep rattling away with your accusations all you want, but that won’t make your claims true.
Let’s see if we can find an argument in here somewhere…
**
Nope, not here, just some hyperbole.
**
Incorrect and hyperbolic. The NRA is somewhat widely despised in the gun community for almost never attempting to lobby for the repeal of laws. The more cynical of us think they like to line their own pockets by maintaining the status quo of constantly slowly having rights eroded - it fuels membership.
**
Also not an argument, but are you saying this statement is somehow incorrect?
**
Whatever that means. Is there an argument in there somewhere?
**
When people make up their own hyperbolic arguments and throw them in the mouth of the opposite, then of course it’s no surprise that such arguments get dismissed. They’re straw men. They’re made to be dismissed.
Oh, you mean when the NRA opposed a bill that would ban ALMOST EVERY RIFLE CALIBER ever made? The one they later helped rewrite and get passed that banned armor piercing handgun ammunition?
Man, that NRA is evil. First, they oppose the de facto ban of all rifles, and then they help pass a bill banning armor piercing handgun ammunition. The devil, I tell you.
Cite
Can you do me a big favor? I think it might help you too in the long run.
Before you hit that “submit reply” button, please ask yourself: Have I made an argument in this post?
Thanks.