***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (1 Viewer)

[5 digit know nothing]

Is this the Steven Levitt of which Matthias speaks?http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/07/07/no-more-dc-gun-ban-no-big-deal/This article seems to support that position that it is more important to severely punish perpetrators of gun crimes in an effort to discourage more crimes. He seems to suggest that the DC and Chicago gun bans did nothing to curb gun crime.

That's the guy.If gun bans don't work, they don't work. But the discussion should revolve around evidence and estimates done by people who know what they're doing, not some guy looking at a scatterplot on the Internet and thinking he just "proved" something.

Or perhaps you should layout all the variables of a correlation you are claiming exists since these simple "scatterplots" clearly show there are no relationships absent other "controls".

Maybe you should personally document every single gun owner in every state and every single murder in every state if you want to use a scatter plot using that data.Or, you know, grow up and be an adult.Your choice.

Keep clinging to your one biased viewpoint and ignore the mountain of contradiction.

 

[Sammy3469]

Is this the Steven Levitt of which Matthias speaks?http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/07/07/no-more-dc-gun-ban-no-big-deal/This article seems to support that position that it is more important to severely punish perpetrators of gun crimes in an effort to discourage more crimes. He seems to suggest that the DC and Chicago gun bans did nothing to curb gun crime.

That's the guy.If gun bans don't work, they don't work. But the discussion should revolve around evidence and estimates done by people who know what they're doing, not some guy looking at a scatterplot on the Internet and thinking he just "proved" something.

Or perhaps you should layout all the variables of a correlation you are claiming exists since these simple "scatterplots" clearly show there are no relationships absent other "controls".

Maybe you should personally document every single gun owner in every state and every single murder in every state if you want to use a scatter plot using that data.Or, you know, grow up and be an adult.Your choice.

Keep clinging to your one biased viewpoint and ignore the mountain of contradiction.

Mountain?

 

[Guest]

Is this the Steven Levitt of which Matthias speaks?http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/07/07/no-more-dc-gun-ban-no-big-deal/This article seems to support that position that it is more important to severely punish perpetrators of gun crimes in an effort to discourage more crimes. He seems to suggest that the DC and Chicago gun bans did nothing to curb gun crime.

That's the guy.If gun bans don't work, they don't work. But the discussion should revolve around evidence and estimates done by people who know what they're doing, not some guy looking at a scatterplot on the Internet and thinking he just "proved" something.

Or perhaps you should layout all the variables of a correlation you are claiming exists since these simple "scatterplots" clearly show there are no relationships absent other "controls".

Maybe you should personally document every single gun owner in every state and every single murder in every state if you want to use a scatter plot using that data.Or, you know, grow up and be an adult.Your choice.

Keep clinging to your one biased viewpoint and ignore the mountain of contradiction.

Are you fishing or seriously ######ed?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Wait let me go put together some data collected by surveying households in cities with the highest crime rates, I won't bother differentiating households with members that have criminal records, households that have illicit drug activity, nor households that have previously recorded violence between members in the household. I realize this will skew the results towards having a higher homicide rate, but that is my POV and all I care about. I'm only going to focus on one stat: "gun ownership". Then I am going to assume this applies to every other city across the U.S.

BRILLIANT!

 

[Henry Ford]

Wait let me go put together some data collected by surveying households in cities with the highest crime rates, I won't bother differentiating households with members that have criminal records, households that have illicit drug activity, nor households that have previously recorded violence between members in the household. I realize this will skew the results towards having a higher homicide rate, but that is my POV and all I care about. I'm only going to focus on one stat: "gun ownership". Then I am going to assume this applies to every other city across the U.S.BRILLIANT!

Oh, sure, but I'm the one with the crack pipe.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/k7biv/by_request_critique_of_study_guns_in_the_home/

By Request, Critique of "Study: Guns in the home offer more risk than benefit"

submitted 1 year ago* by Swordsmanus

Risks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home, by David Hemenway, PhD first published on February 2, 2011

The conclusions of this recent study are held up as fact by anti-gun advocates. It is published by Harvard, after all. But there are several problems with how it goes about coming to those conclusions.

I read the study and noted its citations wherever things did not add up. I then looked up the citations and cross referenced them with readily available information.

My analysis is broken down by section within Dr. Hemenway's study, so you can go back and forth between the two if you'd like.

Introduction

There's some good background on gun ownership and demographics in the US. The problem is the blown-up quote featured on page one. An English, Communication, or Political Science major could have a lot of fun showing how the ostensibly even-handed quote is actually very biased, but I won't get into it here.

Risks

Accidents

The data on accidental gun deaths presented in the study matches up completely with data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

However it omits the fact that accidental gun deaths per year have dropped steadily and significantly in the past 10 years, despite gun ownership going up and concealed and open carry laws becoming more lax across the nation.

In 2007 there were 613 accidental gun deaths, and again it's part of a steady downward trend. For comparison, there were 29,846 accidental deaths by poisoning in 2007 according to the CDC [1].

So while the data presented was sound, it left out powerful yet easily-accessible context...the kind that any researcher on this subject should use as a starting point. But David Hemenway isn't just any researcher. He's a Professor of Health Policy at the Harvard School of Public Health. So why leave it out?

Benefits

Deterrence

Dr. Hemenway points out that there's no clear evidence that gun ownership deters crime.

It's true, guns do not clearly deter crimes from being committed when viewed in the aggregate. The crime data from the FBI Bureau of Justice Statistics going from 1960-2009 supports that [2]. Restrictive gun legislation and lax gun laws have no clear effect, either [3].

There have been studies claiming otherwise both ways, but they have consistently only studied relatively short periods of time and relatively small sample sizes compared to a 50-year span for every state in the nation.

Thwarting Crimes

This is the real offender in the study. Up front, Dr. Hemenway acknowledges that aggregate data on gun use in self-defense is unreliable, while implying that some of those who are included in measurements of defensive gun use are actually criminals.

He then breaks down the sources of self-defense data: (a) police reports, (b) randomly sampled surveys that ask directly about self-defense gun use, and © surveys that ask about self-defense gun use only after respondents report that someone attempted to commit a crime against them (aka, NCVS Surveys).

(a) Police Reports: In this section, Dr. Hemenway implies that guns are almost never useful for self-defense from a home invasion. He cites only the Atlanta study taken from citation #12...A study done on one city, covering a 4-month period. There are tens of thousands of other cities to draw data from, across much greater spans of time than 4 months. There are decades of data to draw upon and view as a coherent whole!

That Dr. Hemenway chose just this single study, for a single city, going over just a 4-month period instead of the course of years, instead of aggregating available data across the nation, says loud and clear that citation #12 was cherry picked to suit his conclusions.

I really can't overstate how much of a methodological and ethical issue this is, given that he uses this citation as though it accurately represents data on home invasions in the US, and uses it to support the study's later conclusions against owning firearms.

b) random sample surveys This section used citation #91 to support its claims, when that study merely gave inconclusive conclusions [4]. Dr. Hemenway also claims, "police report more total self-defense gun uses than all civilians combined", yet citation #92 has the exact opposite data, and is from a study 5 years newer. The JustFacts link I cited earlier uses the same study, listing it as citation [17]. The relevant data is quoted there.

c) NCVS Surveys This section opens with, "The National Crime Victimization Surveys (NCVS) obtain information about self-defense gun use only from those respondents who first report that a crime against them was threatened, attempted, or completed. This feature of the NCVS substantially reduces the problem of reporting incidents that were not true self-defense gun uses."

There’s a critical flaw here. For the reporting period used in the study, the NCVS surveys are at least as likely to under-report defensive gun use as random sample surveys are to over-report them.

Why? The NCVS survey period covered in Dr. Hemenway's study was from 1992 to 2001. Until 1996, in the majority of states, concealed carry was highly restricted or illegal rather than "shall issue" or unrestricted, and even then it wasn't until 2002-2003 when 66% of states became "shall issue" states [5].

Thus, for the majority of the reporting period selected for this study, in most states it was illegal to have a handgun on your person outside the home. For the entire reporting period, a significant number of states had the same issue. And most of the NCVS crimes surveyed were for crimes outside the home:

"...Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government."

"As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact."

"...it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted."

"It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection…”

"...88% of the violent crimes which respondents reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home…in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively."

"Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions, the typical violent crime victim respondent has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection…respondents usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee.” [6]

There are known issues with the NCVS methodology for the period used, and yet its data is still used by Dr. Hemenway to strongly support his position. He wrote "Survey Research And Self-Defense Gun Use: An Explanation Of Extreme Overestimates" in 1997. He is no stranger to evaluating survey methods [7]. He should know well that survey inaccuracy can go both ways due to methodology, not just one way.

Overall the "Thwarting Crimes" section in the study has insufficient strength of citations used to support it vs. other available data/studies refuting it, including citations used within the study, like citations #12 and #92.

Shootings in the Home

Remember the part where Dr. Hemenway acknowledged that aggregate data on gun use in self-defense is unreliable?

In this part, he claims, "Home guns were 4 times more likely to be involved in an accident, 7 times more likely to be used in a criminal assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be used in an attempted or completed suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense".

Under "Thwarting Crime", he says that self-defense data is unreliable. But elsewhere he turns around and implies it really is reliable, but only when the data sampled casts gun use in a bad light. An inconsistency like this is inexcusable, given the author's credentials and experience.

Conclusion

Dr. Hemenway states, "...for those households where having a gun or not will matter this year, the evidence indicates that the costs will widely outweigh the benefits..."

I hope it's clear by now that in this study, Dr. Hemenway started with the above conclusion and then cherry picked his data in order to support it.

What a researcher with integrity does is gather data and form conclusions based only on the most robust, reliable, and consistent data available, omitting or acknowledging the limitations of weaker data and leaving it out of one's conclusions, especially when stronger data contradicts it. To do otherwise is to sully the reputation of all that you and your work are associated with.

 

[tom22406]

I will let this article speak for itself.I highlighted his common sense plan.

Liberal writer has had enough and is not gonna take it anymore

Here, then, is my “madder-than-hell-and-I’m-not-going-to-take-it-anymore” program for ending gun violence in America:

• Repeal the Second Amendment, the part about guns anyway. It’s badly written, confusing and more trouble than it’s worth. It offers an absolute right to gun ownership, but it puts it in the context of the need for a “well-regulated militia.” We don’t make our militia bring their own guns to battles. And surely the Founders couldn’t have envisioned weapons like those used in the Newtown shooting when they guaranteed gun rights. Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.

• Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. Hey! We did it to the Communist Party, and the NRA has led to the deaths of more of us than American Commies ever did. (I would also raze the organization’s headquarters, clear the rubble and salt the earth, but that’s optional.) Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that “prying the guns from their cold, dead hands” thing works for me.

• Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control.

And if that didn’t work, I’d adopt radical measures. None of that is going to happen, of course. But I’ll bet gun sales will rise.

And somehow it's only the pro-gun people who are nutjobs.

 

[Sammy3469]

It's true, guns do not clearly deter crimes from being committed when viewed in the aggregate.

Pretty sure this makes all arguments mute on gun ownership, so thanks for posting this.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by Sammy3469 . View it anyway?

much better

 

[jafo]

Violent crime statistics in the U.S. Video

 

[Glass Joe]

All those above equal a couple more guns in my house. Made sure my 14 year old girl knows how to stop a rapist with a 12 gauge.

Sweet! Got my 9 year old a .22 plinkster for christmas. Going to teach her how to shoot and respect firearms. Going to discuss firearms with my 7 year old son too.

Best way to keep the guns safely around kids.1. Keep guns locked up when not on your hip.2. Teach kids the 4 rules: 1) Treat every firearm as if it were loaded. 2) Do not point a firearm at anything you do not want to destroy. 3) Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you intend to fire. 4) Be aware of your target, what is beyond your target and your surroundings. 3a if applicable) Keep the weapon on safe until you are ready to fire. Weapon on safe when you finish firing.They have to be able to recite the rules to me before they go to the range and after we get back.3. Letting them handle the guns (unloaded and under extremely close supervision) helps curb some of the curiosity, and letting them try them out live once they have proven safe handling to build confidence and respect.6 year old has his own BB gun and has gotten to try the .22 revolver and 10/22 rifle. 14 year old is little (5'0" and 105#) and didn't care much for the recoil of the shotgun until we told her to look at the target and think of how her attacker would feel. Big smile on her face after that.

Father of the year candidate.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Violent crime statistics in the U.S. Video

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Violent crime statistics in the U.S. Video

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

BAM. I couldn't have said it better and have avoided this thread because of the truth he speaks. I alluded to i(info he's pulling up) as the 10 ton elephant in the room, when an article was posted, but it was whining about police and monorities, so I didn't want to go there. But if you keep following that trail, you'll find over 50% of all murders come from about 7% of the population and fit neatly into another subset of those neighborhoods that need help. We are very safe here regardless of the media noise machine.Could be the left needs outrage over crime to ban guns, and the right needs outrage over crime to sell them.

 

[17seconds]

Violent crime statistics in the U.S. Video

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Who is the guy in the video arguing against? His delivery makes it seem like he's saying something important but he's outraged by a strawman.

For the most part, the anti-gun media and people for gun control aren't saying guns increase the instances of violent crime.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Violent crime statistics in the U.S. Video

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Who is the guy in the video arguing against? His delivery makes it seem like he's saying something important but he's outraged by a strawman.

For the most part, the anti-gun media and people for gun control aren't saying guns increase the instances of violent crime.

Have you been reading this thread?

 

[17seconds]

Violent crime statistics in the U.S. Video

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Who is the guy in the video arguing against? His delivery makes it seem like he's saying something important but he's outraged by a strawman.

For the most part, the anti-gun media and people for gun control aren't saying guns increase the instances of violent crime.

Have you been reading this thread?

Not in the last week but if you go back to the early pages you can see I was involved.Nearly everything I've seen in the left media is about controlling guns to keep maniacs from being able to kill dozens of people. Of course there are people who would like to see all guns banned.

But I have yet to hear anyone say we have more violent crime because of guns. As in, you remove guns and people stop hitting and stabbing each other too.

Yet this guy in the video only mentions ALL violent crimes. I don't get why his statistics are so profound.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Violent crime statistics in the U.S. Video

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Who is the guy in the video arguing against? His delivery makes it seem like he's saying something important but he's outraged by a strawman.

For the most part, the anti-gun media and people for gun control aren't saying guns increase the instances of violent crime.

Have you been reading this thread?

Not in the last week but if you go back to the early pages you can see I was involved.Nearly everything I've seen in the left media is about controlling guns to keep maniacs from being able to kill dozens of people. Of course there are people who would like to see all guns banned.

But I have yet to hear anyone say we have more violent crime because of guns. As in, you remove guns and people stop hitting and stabbing each other too.

Yet this guy in the video only mentions ALL violent crimes. I don't get why his statistics are so profound.

Well he does take a stab at the people targeting the AWB when he mentions Rifles only make up ~5% of intentional homicides and AR's are a small segment of that.Also he mentions the problem is not guns but these impoverished neighborhoods with high concentrations of crime.

 

[17seconds]

Violent crime statistics in the U.S. Video

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Who is the guy in the video arguing against? His delivery makes it seem like he's saying something important but he's outraged by a strawman.

For the most part, the anti-gun media and people for gun control aren't saying guns increase the instances of violent crime.

Have you been reading this thread?

Not in the last week but if you go back to the early pages you can see I was involved.Nearly everything I've seen in the left media is about controlling guns to keep maniacs from being able to kill dozens of people. Of course there are people who would like to see all guns banned.

But I have yet to hear anyone say we have more violent crime because of guns. As in, you remove guns and people stop hitting and stabbing each other too.

Yet this guy in the video only mentions ALL violent crimes. I don't get why his statistics are so profound.

Well he does take a stab at the people targeting the AWB when he mentions Rifles only make up ~5% of intentional homicides and AR's are a small segment of that.Also he mentions the problem is not guns but these impoverished neighborhoods with high concentrations of crime.

Yeah, the blacks and mexicans. I heard that dog whistle.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Houston area High Caliber Gun and knife Show gun show this weekend.

Get them while you can.

January

City: Pasadena, TX

Location: Convention Center

Date: January 5 - 6, 2013

Show Hours: Sat 9-5 Sun 10-4

Entry Fee: $8

FREE PARKING

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Forbes Op/Ed on AWB

 

[boots11234]

Forbes Op/Ed on AWB

Good read. Sadly the gun grabbers do not use logic and feel the need to do something and will try to put in place more laws that will have no affect. I found it interesting that CT already has very strict gun laws and also tried to change its mental health laws regarding mandatory commitment but it was defeated by the ACLU.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Reading between the lines, I think this is just a ploy for votes in the mid-term elections. Feinstein's bill is so outrageous, that it WILL get shot down. Easily. But when it does, all of the left-wing chirping will be that the republicans squashed it. If it were to go through, dems would get killed in the mid-term elections. This all seems like a feel-good, non-issue distraction to more serious topics. Sure, if small increments of gun control can be initiated, good for the left. If further gun control can not be initiated, better for the left.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Reading between the lines, I think this is just a ploy for votes in the mid-term elections. Feinstein's bill is so outrageous, that it WILL get shot down. Easily. But when it does, all of the left-wing chirping will be that the republicans squashed it. If it were to go through, dems would get killed in the mid-term elections. This all seems like a feel-good, non-issue distraction to more serious topics. Sure, if small increments of gun control can be initiated, good for the left. If further gun control can not be initiated, better for the left.

I hate politics.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Reading between the lines, I think this is just a ploy for votes in the mid-term elections. Feinstein's bill is so outrageous, that it WILL get shot down. Easily. But when it does, all of the left-wing chirping will be that the republicans squashed it. If it were to go through, dems would get killed in the mid-term elections. This all seems like a feel-good, non-issue distraction to more serious topics. Sure, if small increments of gun control can be initiated, good for the left. If further gun control can not be initiated, better for the left.

I hate politics.

I get the feeling that whichever side wins this battle, loses the war.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

If we outlaw finger guns, only outlaws will have finger guns

This is the county where I live.

 

[TobiasFunke]

If we outlaw finger guns, only outlaws will have finger guns

This is the county where I live.

Awesome. Perhaps my favorite part:

The boy “had no intention to shoot anyone,” said attorney Robin Ficker, who described the child as soft-spoken, with no propensity for violence.

Aren't we all "soft-spoken" from the perspective of Robin Ficker?

 

[tom22406]

Really good to see my local school district taking steps to help protect our kids

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/01/stafford-county-schools-start-new-security-measures-83644.html

 

[Mello]

Really good to see my local school district taking steps to help protect our kids

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/01/stafford-county-schools-start-new-security-measures-83644.html

It's your waste of tax dollars, not mine. Enjoy the renewed fake sense of security.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Really good to see my local school district taking steps to help protect our kids

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/01/stafford-county-schools-start-new-security-measures-83644.html

I like it, one less soft target for the whackjobs

 

[timschochet]

Reading between the lines, I think this is just a ploy for votes in the mid-term elections. Feinstein's bill is so outrageous, that it WILL get shot down. Easily. But when it does, all of the left-wing chirping will be that the republicans squashed it. If it were to go through, dems would get killed in the mid-term elections. This all seems like a feel-good, non-issue distraction to more serious topics. Sure, if small increments of gun control can be initiated, good for the left. If further gun control can not be initiated, better for the left.

You really don't understand. Right or wrong, your opposition is sincere: they were horrified by Newtown, and they want to find ways to solve this problem. This is no ploy, no left-wing scheme. What specifically do you find outrageous about Feinstein's bill?

 

[Hoosier16]

Reading between the lines, I think this is just a ploy for votes in the mid-term elections. Feinstein's bill is so outrageous, that it WILL get shot down. Easily. But when it does, all of the left-wing chirping will be that the republicans squashed it. If it were to go through, dems would get killed in the mid-term elections. This all seems like a feel-good, non-issue distraction to more serious topics. Sure, if small increments of gun control can be initiated, good for the left. If further gun control can not be initiated, better for the left.

You really don't understand. Right or wrong, your opposition is sincere: they were horrified by Newtown, and they want to find ways to solve this problem. This is no ploy, no left-wing scheme. What specifically do you find outrageous about Feinstein's bill?

I think it's already been discussed, but what part of her bill will solve what happened in Newtown?

 

[timschochet]

Reading between the lines, I think this is just a ploy for votes in the mid-term elections. Feinstein's bill is so outrageous, that it WILL get shot down. Easily. But when it does, all of the left-wing chirping will be that the republicans squashed it. If it were to go through, dems would get killed in the mid-term elections. This all seems like a feel-good, non-issue distraction to more serious topics. Sure, if small increments of gun control can be initiated, good for the left. If further gun control can not be initiated, better for the left.

You really don't understand. Right or wrong, your opposition is sincere: they were horrified by Newtown, and they want to find ways to solve this problem. This is no ploy, no left-wing scheme. What specifically do you find outrageous about Feinstein's bill?

I think it's already been discussed, but what part of her bill will solve what happened in Newtown?

Perhaps none of it. But that has nothing to do with my question- I asked what was outrageous about it?

 

[Hoosier16]

Reading between the lines, I think this is just a ploy for votes in the mid-term elections. Feinstein's bill is so outrageous, that it WILL get shot down. Easily. But when it does, all of the left-wing chirping will be that the republicans squashed it. If it were to go through, dems would get killed in the mid-term elections. This all seems like a feel-good, non-issue distraction to more serious topics. Sure, if small increments of gun control can be initiated, good for the left. If further gun control can not be initiated, better for the left.

You really don't understand. Right or wrong, your opposition is sincere: they were horrified by Newtown, and they want to find ways to solve this problem. This is no ploy, no left-wing scheme. What specifically do you find outrageous about Feinstein's bill?

I think it's already been discussed, but what part of her bill will solve what happened in Newtown?

Perhaps none of it. But that has nothing to do with my question- I asked what was outrageous about it?

If none of it will solve the problem, why do it? I can't speak for Cookiemonster, but maybe this is what he finds outrageous.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

*Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include -Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law;

Most gun owners don't feel they should have to register their guns nor do they trust LE not to confiscate and I would be surprised (if this does pass) what kind of turnout they will actually get. This could turn into a witch hunt with LE tracking down owners of guns in the end.

 

[timschochet]

Reading between the lines, I think this is just a ploy for votes in the mid-term elections. Feinstein's bill is so outrageous, that it WILL get shot down. Easily. But when it does, all of the left-wing chirping will be that the republicans squashed it. If it were to go through, dems would get killed in the mid-term elections. This all seems like a feel-good, non-issue distraction to more serious topics. Sure, if small increments of gun control can be initiated, good for the left. If further gun control can not be initiated, better for the left.

You really don't understand. Right or wrong, your opposition is sincere: they were horrified by Newtown, and they want to find ways to solve this problem. This is no ploy, no left-wing scheme. What specifically do you find outrageous about Feinstein's bill?

I think it's already been discussed, but what part of her bill will solve what happened in Newtown?

Perhaps none of it. But that has nothing to do with my question- I asked what was outrageous about it?

If none of it will solve the problem, why do it? I can't speak for Cookiemonster, but maybe this is what he finds outrageous.

Feinstein believes it will solve many problems related to gun violence. I tend to agree with her, at least regarding certain aspects of the bill. But the word "outrageous" implies something far beyond this argument, that there is a terrible aspect of this bill rather than simply "well, it probably won't help much." Which is why I continue to ask, what makes the bill outrageous?

 

[timschochet]

*Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include -Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law;

Most gun owners don't feel they should have to register their guns nor do they trust LE not to confiscate and I would be surprised (if this does pass) what kind of turnout they will actually get. This could turn into a witch hunt with LE tracking down owners of guns in the end.

Well, that IS outrageous. It's outrageous that gun owners could be so paranoid as to distrust law enforcement and fear a "witchhunt." It is NOT outrageous to register all guns. This is something that should have been done decades ago.

 

[Slingblade]

*Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include -Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law;

Most gun owners don't feel they should have to register their guns nor do they trust LE not to confiscate and I would be surprised (if this does pass) what kind of turnout they will actually get. This could turn into a witch hunt with LE tracking down owners of guns in the end.

Well, that IS outrageous. It's outrageous that gun owners could be so paranoid as to distrust law enforcement and fear a "witchhunt." It is NOT outrageous to register all guns. This is something that should have been done decades ago.

That's your opinion.

 

[timschochet]

*Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include -Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law;

Most gun owners don't feel they should have to register their guns nor do they trust LE not to confiscate and I would be surprised (if this does pass) what kind of turnout they will actually get. This could turn into a witch hunt with LE tracking down owners of guns in the end.

Well, that IS outrageous. It's outrageous that gun owners could be so paranoid as to distrust law enforcement and fear a "witchhunt." It is NOT outrageous to register all guns. This is something that should have been done decades ago.

That's your opinion.

Thanks for defining that.

 

[Slingblade]

*Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include -Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law;

Most gun owners don't feel they should have to register their guns nor do they trust LE not to confiscate and I would be surprised (if this does pass) what kind of turnout they will actually get. This could turn into a witch hunt with LE tracking down owners of guns in the end.

Well, that IS outrageous. It's outrageous that gun owners could be so paranoid as to distrust law enforcement and fear a "witchhunt." It is NOT outrageous to register all guns. This is something that should have been done decades ago.

That's your opinion.

Thanks for defining that.

Anytime.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Reading between the lines, I think this is just a ploy for votes in the mid-term elections. Feinstein's bill is so outrageous, that it WILL get shot down. Easily. But when it does, all of the left-wing chirping will be that the republicans squashed it. If it were to go through, dems would get killed in the mid-term elections. This all seems like a feel-good, non-issue distraction to more serious topics. Sure, if small increments of gun control can be initiated, good for the left. If further gun control can not be initiated, better for the left.

You really don't understand. Right or wrong, your opposition is sincere: they were horrified by Newtown, and they want to find ways to solve this problem. This is no ploy, no left-wing scheme. What specifically do you find outrageous about Feinstein's bill?

I think it's already been discussed, but what part of her bill will solve what happened in Newtown?

Perhaps none of it. But that has nothing to do with my question- I asked what was outrageous about it?

If none of it will solve the problem, why do it? I can't speak for Cookiemonster, but maybe this is what he finds outrageous.

Feinstein believes it will solve many problems related to gun violence. I tend to agree with her, at least regarding certain aspects of the bill. But the word "outrageous" implies something far beyond this argument, that there is a terrible aspect of this bill rather than simply "well, it probably won't help much." Which is why I continue to ask, what makes the bill outrageous?

What makes it outrageous is it infringes on peoples rights. A very large majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens. Do you think the criminals are going to register their grandfathered weapons? Every time a crime is committed they will be looking at what kind of bullet was used, then run down their database and create a list of suspects from law abiding citizens that registered their weapons. Furthermore, while you may not believe this, a lot of gun owners fear an increasing set of restrictions coming down the pipe in that this could be the first of many and they will readily cite you examples of other governments that did this which lead to confiscation of all weapons since it gives the government a master list of where to get the guns.FTR: I don't own a gun.

 

[timschochet]

What makes it outrageous is it infringes on peoples rights. A very large majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens. Do you think the criminals are going to register their grandfathered weapons? Every time a crime is committed they will be looking at what kind of bullet was used, then run down their database and create a list of suspects from law abiding citizens that registered their weapons. Furthermore, while you may not believe this, a lot of gun owners fear an increasing set of restrictions coming down the pipe in that this could be the first of many and they will readily cite you examples of other governments that did this which lead to confiscation of all weapons since it gives the government a master list of where to get the guns.FTR: I don't own a gun.

We've been over these arguments. Obviously we disagree. I just don't get the paranoia. I realize that it's for real, but it saddens me.But despite the fact that the paranoia is there, reasonable people can't let it affect their thinking on the best steps to take.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

What makes it outrageous is it infringes on peoples rights. A very large majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens. Do you think the criminals are going to register their grandfathered weapons? Every time a crime is committed they will be looking at what kind of bullet was used, then run down their database and create a list of suspects from law abiding citizens that registered their weapons. Furthermore, while you may not believe this, a lot of gun owners fear an increasing set of restrictions coming down the pipe in that this could be the first of many and they will readily cite you examples of other governments that did this which lead to confiscation of all weapons since it gives the government a master list of where to get the guns.FTR: I don't own a gun.

We've been over these arguments. Obviously we disagree. I just don't get the paranoia. I realize that it's for real, but it saddens me.But despite the fact that the paranoia is there, reasonable people can't let it affect their thinking on the best steps to take.

Yes we disagree. Why do you feel so strongly that they are they the best steps to take? your thoughts on:* Impact on crime:ban (specifically the ban)* % of Criminals that will register their weapons* Impact on crime:registration (when 99% of the people that actually register their weapons are not criminals)* LE now profiling gun owners as potential suspects based on the weapons they own specifically in cases when bullets match on weapon type only

 

[timschochet]

What makes it outrageous is it infringes on peoples rights. A very large majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens. Do you think the criminals are going to register their grandfathered weapons? Every time a crime is committed they will be looking at what kind of bullet was used, then run down their database and create a list of suspects from law abiding citizens that registered their weapons. Furthermore, while you may not believe this, a lot of gun owners fear an increasing set of restrictions coming down the pipe in that this could be the first of many and they will readily cite you examples of other governments that did this which lead to confiscation of all weapons since it gives the government a master list of where to get the guns.FTR: I don't own a gun.

We've been over these arguments. Obviously we disagree. I just don't get the paranoia. I realize that it's for real, but it saddens me.But despite the fact that the paranoia is there, reasonable people can't let it affect their thinking on the best steps to take.

Yes we disagree. Why do you feel so strongly that they are they the best steps to take? your thoughts on:* Impact on crime:ban (specifically the ban)* % of Criminals that will register their weapons* Impact on crime:registration (when 99% of the people that actually register their weapons are not criminals)* LE now profiling gun owners as potential suspects based on the weapons they own specifically in cases when bullets match on weapon type only

Have to leave- will try to answer later on.

 

[Glass Joe]

What is the point in registering a weapon? I can't see much.

 

[iwabaf]

From Feinstein's website "Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes"

I don't see how oulawing certain weapons and at the same time exempting different models with similar characteristics does anything. So a person with ill intentions can't buy one of the outlawed weapons but can buy a different model? Whats the point of the bill? Its like saying soft drinks are bad and outlawing Pepsi but allowing Coke to be sold.

 

[boots11234]

*Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include -Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law;

Most gun owners don't feel they should have to register their guns nor do they trust LE not to confiscate and I would be surprised (if this does pass) what kind of turnout they will actually get. This could turn into a witch hunt with LE tracking down owners of guns in the end.

Well, that IS outrageous. It's outrageous that gun owners could be so paranoid as to distrust law enforcement and fear a "witchhunt." It is NOT outrageous to register all guns. This is something that should have been done decades ago.

What do you think would be gained by the police having this info? I'd be curious to your stance on wireless taps or any other form of government intrusion. Would it be OK with you for the govt to monitor your phone calls and Internet activity with no PC?

 

[boots11234]

Reading between the lines, I think this is just a ploy for votes in the mid-term elections. Feinstein's bill is so outrageous, that it WILL get shot down. Easily. But when it does, all of the left-wing chirping will be that the republicans squashed it. If it were to go through, dems would get killed in the mid-term elections. This all seems like a feel-good, non-issue distraction to more serious topics. Sure, if small increments of gun control can be initiated, good for the left. If further gun control can not be initiated, better for the left.

You really don't understand. Right or wrong, your opposition is sincere: they were horrified by Newtown, and they want to find ways to solve this problem. This is no ploy, no left-wing scheme. What specifically do you find outrageous about Feinstein's bill?

I understand the need to want to do something, I think though statistics have shown the previous AWB did nothing and since it expired crime with those types of weapons have gone down but sales have gone way up. Yet the first thing the go after is guns. Can you not see that? Knee jerk reactions do no good except get politicians reelected.

 

[boots11234]

From Feinstein's website "Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes"

I don't see how oulawing certain weapons and at the same time exempting different models with similar characteristics does anything. So a person with ill intentions can't buy one of the outlawed weapons but can buy a different model? Whats the point of the bill? Its like saying soft drinks are bad and outlawing Pepsi but allowing Coke to be sold.

It makes them feel good. Like I've been saying, it's all about feelings. Plus if there is forced registration they know who has the guns. Then in the future when some other terrible event happens they know exactly where to go to get the remaining guns. Which even if they did this, it still wouldn't solve the problem. Just look at gun crimes in England and Australia after they banned guns. Yup, surprise, gun crime went up because only criminals had guns.

 

[Guest]

Furthermore, while you may not believe this, a lot of gun owners fear an increasing set of restrictions coming down the pipe in that this could be the first of many and they will readily cite you examples of other governments that did this which lead to confiscation of all weapons since it gives the government a master list of where to get the guns.

We'll increase money for mental health care, too.

 

[Henry Ford]

It makes them feel good. Like I've been saying, it's all about feelings.

Does owning a gun make you feel good?