Matthew, thanks! I was beginning to get the feeling the gun control people were being snowed over by stats and just wanted to point out that it's all too easy to make a list that sounds really impressive, but...you know!
Anyway, Jeff, I wanted to make a few more comments. First, I failed to respond to one of your intial questions, which is about the background of responders. I am a 26 year old female and I live in California. I currently live in the Bay Area, but grew up around LA and San Diego. I am an unapologetic environmentalist. Another strike against guns for me is hunting. Controlling the animal population with guns is not a valid answer to a problem humans have created, which is destroying their habitat. We caused the problem and we should solve it by a better process than killing them. It's not their fault! Also, the slippery slope between deer and ducks to tigers and elephants it too much for me and people that think a "sport" is going out and killing defenseless animals do not know the value of true sports such as competing against similarly equipped, similarly intelligent humans, such as in football or the eco-challenge or golf! Also, have you seen the quote "Protect our rights to arm bears!" Hilarious pun!
But, here are a few things I bet you couldn't guess! I am ardently pro-death penalty. I think if we actually used it more, we'd see some results. the sad fact is, criminals do not actually think they will get the death penalty and that's a big reason they are not deterred. Additionally, I am for welfare-reform and fiscally conservative and believe in the family's responsibility to raise their children and not blame guns, music or TV. In fact, if I was one of the mother's suing the MTV show Jackass, I would be embarrassed to admit to the world that i let MTV raise my kid. She must have, because she's saying that MTV's influence on him is greater than her years of saying, "It's probably not a good idea to set yourself on fire!" The lack of personal responsibility in our society is outrageous!
Now, before you respond to my previous post, I want to let you know that I have already seen your rebuttals to the scientific methods used by Kellerman in his studies. however, I also know that the New England Journal of Medicine has each article reviewed by 10-15 of the author's peers (who by the way, are not paid and are purposely diverse in their studies and beliefs). So, when I read them refuting the refute of the gun-advocates, well what do I believe? I am sure you feel the same way about the evidence I presented about Lott and Kleck and their faulty research methods. It seems clear to me that one cannot trust the conclusions they came to when they violate basic research principles, but I know that you are committed to these studies and doubt you will give them up as evidence to be used for your cause. So, we are at an impasse, are we not? If you agree to refute every study I post, I will agree to do the same for you!
Actually, I am just kidding about that and about the Guiness competition about who can find more websites. I love this spirited discussion and fully intend to participate more, but because gun control is not one of my "pet issues" and the fact that I am a busy gal, I don't think a competition between us would be fair or possible. After all, you have been researching it almost as long as I have been alive AND you sound like you might have some more time on your hands than me
But, to direct what I would like to discuss with you further, and take it to the next level, what does one do when one can refute everything their opponent says, but all of their evidence is similarly refuted? How do we take this discussion up a notch, and not end up repeating or reinventing stats for every post we make?
One more question I can't resist: did I miss it or may we ask what the OTMG stands for?
[This message has been edited by SuperXO (edited April 28, 2001).]