Guns and Gun Control

[Billy Optimist]

Cool list Jeff. Its good to see the constitution defended. But, school violence is down a lot now. Lowest sence people started going to highschool. Its just more spread out now, thats why the media is able to focus on it.

[tcsparky]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Billy Optimist:
[B] If the government ever out laws ALL guns, which is highly unlikey, they will not have the power to take yours if you bought them before that law was made. Thats in the constitution too. Its known as the "ex post facto" clause"

Actully, they can take weapons that you possessed before a particular gun was outlawed. They have done it in California. People were told that they were legally allowed to own SKS rifles, but that they must register them. The next attorney general to take office then decided to outlaw that particular weapon, used the registration list to mail a notice to those people that they must surrender their SKS, alter them to make them inoperable(ruin), or sell them out of state. Anyone who did not comply was then labeled a felon, and the registration list became a confiscation list. "Ex po facto" did not protect these people from this law. If a weapon is outlawed, it is against the law to own it, whether you bought it before or after it was outlawed. You are thinking that if the IMPORTING of a particular weapon is outlawed, then people who already own it are allowed to keep it, and any of those for sale that are already in the country are allowed to be sold.

[Billy Optimist]

TC Sparky--
Then that action was unconstitutional, and should be challenged.

[newbie]

Jeff, I invite you to visit my school's newspaper site...where there were three very good articles regarding gun control and recent school violence... http://www.thelowell.org/opinion/200...7-gunctrl.html and http://www.thelowell.org/opinion/200...7-opblame.html and http://www.thelowell.org/opinion/200...p2ndamend.html

My school's newspaper has always won either Number One or Two in "Best High School Newspaper" in the U.S....so you can bet that you will have a good time reading the articles!


[This message has been edited by newbie (edited April 27, 2001).]

[Billy Optimist]

AND IF YA WANNA BATTLE BRING A SHOT-GUN!!
BUT IF YOU DO YOU'RE A FOOL CUZ I DUEL TO THE DEATH TRYIN TA STEP TA ME YA TAKE YA LAST BREATH

[Billy Optimist]

AND IF YA WANNA BATTLE BRING A SHOT-GUN!!
BUT IF YOU DO YOU'RE A FOOL CUZ I DUEL TO THE DEATH TRYIN TA STEP TA ME YA TAKE YA LAST BREATH

[Jeff OTMG]

Thanks newbie!!!! I was able to read through each piece and I will be putting together responses for each one. I do find it difficult to debate people in high school, no offense, because at that age most people are limited in comprehension of views outside of where they regularly get information. For example, small children will believe ANYTHING that their parents tell them is true and deny truth if it contradicts their parents. They will accept the parental information as fact and repeat it to anyone who will listen. By high school age most have matured enough to begin to question some things told to them by their parents, but they do tend to shift what they believe to information gathered from the media, teachers, and peers, prequently without question. The fact that they are in San Fransisco adds another interesting element in that there is not a very diverse 'thought pool' there. Most people who live there have the same general ideas about social issues and values. What I find amusing is that they wish to impose their beliefs and opinions on the entire country much as the pro-life groups wish to impose their beliefs on everyone and I am relatively certain that the students would condem the pro-life groups for pushing for national legislation.

I must say that the articles are well written and the paper has a web site to be proud of, VERY well done. I am impressed with both the quality of the material and the idea of putting it together in such a professional site. It reflects well upon the school to have something of that quality to represent them to the public and to have it available on the web gives the school international exposer. Exposer at that level was not even dreamed of when I was in high school, class of '75.

[SuperXO]

Hmm, I have been holding back, but here is what I have to say:

Firearms are, in almost all cases, totally unnnecessary except for 2 reasons: to kill people or to protect yourself against another person with a firearm that wants to harm you. Sure, it would be hard at first, but in the long run, getting rid of guns would be a solution to many of our problems. People can find any number of statistics to suit their cause, but the fact remains that humans are so selfish and immature at most stages that they are not prepared to deal with the enormity of their power. I am appalled by the paucity of intelligence exhibited by many of my fellow Americans and cannot believe that we think it doesn't infringe upon everyone's rights for people like these to own guns, drive vehicles, have children and any number of other things. we are, as a species, shooting ourselves in the foot (pardon the pun).

Canada does fine without every other person owning a firearm...they seem like happy people and they have a lovely country (before anyone says it, don't worry, I AM considering moving there!)

And finally, I swear I see a correlation between arrogance and unadulterated testosterone-caused idiocy by gun-owners and proponents. Hmm, if I ever get back into the sciences I will most certainly do a study to see if gun-owners are actually more arrogant, or if it is only a misconception.

[Jeff OTMG]

Allow me to respond to that:

Originally posted by SuperXO:
Firearms are, in almost all cases, totally unnnecessary except for 2 reasons: to kill people or to protect yourself against another person with a firearm that wants to harm you.

I shall assume by this statement then that you would then support a ban on firearms. That would then, of course, include police since we wouldn't want the police killing people and they would not need the protection since nobody else would have firearms (that would be illegal). That being said, you will find little support from the law enforcement community to disarm themselves. You don't see many cops getting mugged. Why is that? It is because they have guns. Your total premise is incorrect from the start. You state 'IN MOST CASES...'. I own nearly 100 firearms, the majority of them handguns. Zero have been used for criminal purposes. In fact there are 260,000,000+ firearms in the U.S., far less than 130,000,000 firearms are used illegally. Therefore that statement is a lie. You also state that there are two primary reasons to own guns. I have already shown that they don't kill people, do you honestly believe that I need 100 guns for self defense? No. Some of my battery are employed in the self-defense role, based on climate, attire, and activity, but the majority are owned purely for the enjoyment for the sport or competition. I also have 4 motorcycles because I like them. Some people like cars. As far as using the guns for self defense ONLY against another person with a firearm, I beg to disagree. A firearm can be employed anytime there is a disparity of force. For example, in Nov 1989 when 5 men attempted to abduct my girlfriend, my firearm negated the odds of 5 to 1. The firearm gave me the power to kill all five of them in under 2 seconds. I do not know if they were armed with guns or knives or nothing. 5 to 1 was enough that I was not going to risk my well being in a hand to hand confrontation. I say 2 seconds because I have engaged four separate 8" targets (about the size of a human head) at a range of 12 feet and placed one shot on each target in 1.44 seconds. Adding one more target would surely not take an extra half second. My score was only good enough for second place in the match, my friend beat me with a time of 1.27 seconds. My intervention allowed them to decide whether to continue with the activity or disengage. They decided to leave. Point is that a firearm can be used to defend against another firearm, a knife, a club, multiple assailants, or in one state (Texas) to protect the loss or damage of personal property regardless of value.

Originally posted by SuperXO:
Sure, it would be hard at first, but in the long run, getting rid of guns would be a solution to many of our problems.

Actually it would be the solution to many of the problems of criminals. Go to a prison sometime and interview burglars. Or you could just go to the library and read the Wright-Rossi report for the answers (they interviewed over 1500 prisoners). Ask them why they break into homes when nobody is there. If you look at home invasions (burglaries where the home is occupied) you will find much higher rates in all other countries. When you ask the prisoners why, the number one reason that they avoid occupied houses is the fear that someone at home might have a gun to shoot them with. If you are against firearms I strongly urge you to place a sign in your front yard declaring your home a 'Safe House - GUN FREE HOME. No firearms permitted on premises.' Go ahead and set an example for the rest of us. Lead by example. If you are not willing to do this ask yourself why not. If you are, let me know how long it is before you are the subject of a home invasion.

Originally posted by SuperXO:
People can find any number of statistics to suit their cause, but the fact remains that humans are so selfish and immature at most stages that they are not prepared to deal with the enormity of their power.

I am fully prepared to deal with the power of carrying a gun. I have had more than one opportunity to shoot people. LEGALLY. In Texas it is legal to shoot 'taggers' after dark. Last week a 14 year old was shot in the back for stealing chickens in San Antonio at 04:00. The shooter will not be charged, it is legal. Yes it is legal, but I go out of my way to avoid shooting people. I do still want the option to decide if I want to shoot the person that is in the process of caving my head in with a crowbar. I have found that introducing a firearm early into a confrontation of that type is sufficient to stop it before it starts.

Originally posted by SuperXO:
I am appalled by the paucity of intelligence exhibited by many of my fellow Americans and cannot believe that we think it doesn't infringe upon everyone's rights for people like these to own guns, drive vehicles, have children and any number of other things.

I don't know if I understand you correctly, but gun ownership and having children are rights. Driving is a privledge. Are you saying that some people should not be permitted to have children? I have a serious problem with that. It may solve some problems and do some good in certain cases, BUT you cannot removed a persons right to have a family without some serious extenuating circumstance. China has restrictions like that, on guns as well, and as we all know China is not a republic nor does it use a representative democracy as a form of govt as found in the U.S.

Originally posted by SuperXO:
Canada does fine without every other person owning a firearm...they seem like happy people and they have a lovely country (before anyone says it, don't worry, I AM considering moving there!)

There are about 27 million Canadians and 8 million Canadian gun owners. We have 275 million people and 80 million gun owners. the gun ownership rate is actually higher in Canada than here. They have a very different social order than the U.S. They do not seem to want to kill each other nearly as much as we do, but they do not have the violent history of the U.S. Guns are not the problem, if they were Canada would be much worse off than the U.S.

Originally posted by SuperXO:
And finally, I swear I see a correlation between arrogance and unadulterated testosterone-caused idiocy by gun-owners and proponents.

I would like to know where you see it? I see just the opposite. I see groups like the Million Mom March lie to the point that their parent organizations (The Trauma Foundation and the Bell Campaign) were thrown out of their office space that they were getting illegally from the San Francisco General Hospital Building 1 Room 300.
Here is the page of a friend of mine who helped get them kicked out: http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/mmm/

With any luck we will have the Justice Department investigation underway before the end of the year and the mommies laid off 30 of 35 employees as a result. Best I can do is the opening of the article from the SF Examiner and a link to the New York Times.

4/12/01 - front page of the SF Examiner daily paper:

Million Mom March leaving its office space

By Christopher Merrill Of The Examiner Staff

The Million Mom March foundation is moving out of rent-free office space it enjoyed for two years on the third floor of a building at San Francisco General Hospital.

A pro-gun activist launched a campaign against the group this year when he discovered what he said were unapproved taxpayer subsidies -- meaning free rent -- going toward the ailing gun-control organization.

This contains only a reference to the layoffs: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/11/we...gewanted=print

If you want to see idiocy I can provide you with an unbelievable amount of information on the liars and criminals that make up the anti-gun groups. It even includes funding of 'studies' to get results they want published. In fact in my buddies link above are letters to the CDC asking that they withdraw money due to a misuse of govt funds. Members of the MMM charged with assault. A Colorado director of the Bell Campaign assaulting a person attending a speech by Charlton Heston note the first article and statements by police: http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive...aynesword.html
Then a follow up: http://www.bouldernews.com/news/local/09lgun.html
The story of a MMM member tracking down and shooting the person who whe thought shot her son, only she got the wrong guy. You want arrogance? Look to the radical anti-rights political lobbying groups. They are voilent and will lie and distort anything to fit their agenda.

Originally posted by SuperXO:
Hmm, if I ever get back into the sciences I will most certainly do a study to see if gun-owners are actually more arrogant, or if it is only a misconception.

I certainly hope that you don't get my tax dollars for something like that, but if you do I would like to take bets that, as any other person doing a study where there is a personal agenda involved, I am sure that it will come out exactly as you want it to. About that arrogance you mentioned earlier. You might want to read a piece published by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc., Medical Sentinel: Gun Violence Studies Based on Flawed Methods, Political Agendas, you wouldn't want to be included in that. http://www.aapsonline.org/aaps/press/medsentgun.htm

I do see a bit of meanness or a snide sarcastic tone to some of your post. I suggest that you read this and see if you see yourself in any of the doctor's observations: http://www.jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

Please feel free to respond to any statements which I have made to rebut your views. I would be particularly intersted in 'only two uses for firearms' (though I suspect that Dr. Sarah Thompson's article has you pegged see the Projection defense mechanism part), the part about removing peoples right to have children, and proof that your theory of 'getting rid of guns would be a solution to many of our problems' would work. On the last one, I would avoid crime stats from England and Australia since passing their sweeping gun control measures a few years ago, it will only prove you wrong.


[This message has been edited by Jeff OTMG (edited April 28, 2001).]

[SuperXO]

Jeff,
As you expected, I would like to respond. I have two introductory comments. One is that you failed to acknowledge my statement (even though you reproduced it) that, sure it would be hard at first, but in the long run, getting rid of guns, etc. etc... So, no I don't advocate banning firearms tomorrow. I am a pragmatist and fully realize that all heck would break loose. However, I still purport that if we could overcome the initial pain and work out the kinks, life would be better without handguns. That's my opinion, which you asked us all for at the beginning.

Second, you're right. I forgot the recreational use of guns. Strangely, I still don't see guns as some noble object. The recreational use of guns is no more necessary than killing people with guns. Here's a little quote that kinda repeats what I said more eloquently: the old classic "cars kill more people than guns, but we don't ban cars." The response to this irrelevant argument is that cars have other usage, whereas guns basically just kill, or threaten to kill. Their one potentially valid use, self-defense, is undercut by the statistics by Kellerman and Zimring previously cited, as well as fatal weaknesses in the arguments of Lott and Kleck. (don't worry, more to come on those names you probably recognize!)And another quote from Titus, a cute little TV show that sent me into hysterics the other night when Titus and his father were in a gun shop and Titus (as a little boy) says, "Daddy, I want a gun!" and his father says, "Christopher, we don't need guns. The men in our family have penises." Hmmm...might Dr. Sarah Thompson have an opinion on what category gun-owners fall into? Probably not, but I can tell you, as a graduate in Psychology, that a lot of the rhetoric they spout could qualify them for inferiority complex, paranoia, sometimes to the point of being socially debilitative (in which case it is an actual disease according to the APA) and sometimes, borderline personality disorder.

The fact is, I am not debating the legality of gun ownership, nor how painful it would be to suddenly ban guns in America. However, I maintain my opinion that guns are like the little hanging things at the back of our throats...you know the uvula? The true purpose is archaic and no longer applicable. But, well, they're still here and it'll take lots of years of evolution to get rid of them.

However, I cannot stop here, because although I rightly claimed that people can and will find any statistics to support their cause, you spewed many forth for me. So, here are a few words for you on yours.

First, I found it ironic that you questioned a study I might run to see if there is a correlation between gun ownership and arrogance, in addition to saying that gun control advocates often fund research to get what they want. Then you send me off to pro-gun sites and expect me to believe those are unbiased? Oh yeah, and Dr. Sarah Thompson surely did not have an agenda when she was using science to prove that gun control advocates have psychological issues. I am insulted that you would think I would not notice the hypocrisy!

And FYI, I know enough to conduct double-blind studies with representative samples, which apparently some of your boys do not (read on!)

"Laws restricting access to guns have resulted in a decline in gun homicides and suicides. Laws making it easier to carry concealed weapons have not decreased homicide rates and may have contributed to increases in homicides. Although some have argued that laws making it easier to carry concealed weapons decrease violent crime rates, this conclusion is based on flawed research. http://support.jhsph.edu/departments...factsheets.cfm

Apparently the pro-gun advocates funded studies that used non-representative samples to show that gun violence went down when there were no laws to restrict gun ownership. Oh and also, they forgot to control for the fact that gun-violence was already on the decline in their test areas (Florida was a specific example), so how could they tell what was causal and what was incidental. the answer: they can't!

This research was done by Johns Hopkins University, one of the premier secondary institutions in our country. Their bibliography for this piece in particular is made up of articles from such respected journals as the New England Journal of Medicine and the American Journal of Public Health, so you can't even say it's because this school was given huge grants by gun-control advocates!

Here's another little something by nationally renowned and respected publications:
But research has shown that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than an intruder.(Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm Related Deaths in the Home." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60.) The use of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases the victim's risk of injury and death(FE Zimring, Firearms, violence, and public policy, Scientific American, vol. 265, 1991, p. 48).

and...
Research by Dr. Arthur Kellerman has shown that keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one. That is, excluding many other factors such as previous history of violence, class, race, etc., a household with a gun is 2.7 times more likely to experience a murder than a household without one, even while there was no significant increase in the risk of non-gun homicides!
This study (Arthur Kellermann et. al., "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," The New England Journal of Medicine, October 7, 1993, pp. 1084-1091) has been much maligned by the gun lobby, but despite repeated efforts to tar it as non-scientific, its publication in one of the most respected peer-reviewed journals in the world is just one indiciation of its soundness.

Finally, I found this little snippet at the site which follows:
FBI Crime Reports sources indicate that there are about 340,000 reported firearms thefts every year. Those guns, the overwhelming amount of which were originally manufactured and purchased legally, and now in the hands of criminals. Thus, the old credo "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is silly. What happens is many guns bought legally are sold or stolen, and can then be used for crime. http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm

I also read a lot about America having more violent gun related incidents than 25 industrialized nations combined and every high schooler knowing someone who brought a gun to school and what-not. I will not waste either of our time with these because, although they prove my point that America, with the some of the loosest laws, is the worst country to live in for gun violence, it has not much to do with my statement that the world would be better without guns, period.

One thing I always find interesting and would like your views on: many gun-advocates claim that the government is corrupt and wants to restrict guns so they can control the people and take away our rights. However, since the courts have not ruled in favor of the Second Amendment protecting the individual's right to keep and bear arms, I would say that these people are mighty lucky that their government officials are protecting them by keeping this stuff legal! They should all thank their local Senators and Reps. Do you not agree?
In conclusion...(well, it IS almost as long as an essay for school)
Do I believe everything I read? No. I don't believe everything you posted, nor do I believe everything I posted, because some were conveniently taken from gun-control websites. My point, once again, that people can find any stats to support their position. However, I believe a lot of the things I posted, because of the quality of research put out by people who are permitted to submit to the New England Journal of Medicine and such.

Maybe some day you and I will have a contest to see who can find more websites to support their position. I bet we'd qualify for some Guiness Record, because the resources are nearly limitless!

Oh, and as far as having children and operating moto rvehicles, those are non-sequitirs and do not belong in this thread, so I won’t make my post ANY LONGER!!! (Whew!)

Bye for now!

[This message has been edited by SuperXO (edited April 28, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by SuperXO (edited April 28, 2001).]

[SuperXO]

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).]

[matthewg]

Super XO
WONDERFUL!!!!!!!!

[Jeff OTMG]

WOW SUPER XO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I go away for a minute and I come back to this! I am going to have to do this in stages and I am going to take up the easy part first.

Thanks for the info, it looks like we are about as opposite as two people can be. I grew up all over the country, which includes putting some time in out in Calif. I can tell you that Calif, Hawaii, Mass, NY, and NJ are similar in political views, but those views are not shared by most of the rest of the country. I saw recently that San Francisco is going to allow insurance for city employees to cover their expenses for sex change operations. I remember a couple of years ago when a cougar killed a female jogger. The cougar was tracked and killed, was also found to have a couple of cubs that had to be taken in and raised. In Calif. more money was donated to care for and raise the cougar cubs than was donated to the jogger's memorial fund for her children. I may be going out on a limb here, but I really don't think that you would see that happen in Texas or many other places. The U.S. in general is VERY different from where you have lived. You will be happy to know that I do not hunt, I did 25 years ago, birds mostly, but not anymore. If someone else wants to hunt I won't stop them, but it is not for me and not for me to decide for them. With nearly 100 firearms in my possession about the only thing in danger around me at the range is a paper plate or a sheet of paper with an ink target printed on it. I would rather go to the store to buy my groceries. If you ever went hunting you would be surprised at how difficult it can be. Some of the animals are downright dangerous, as mentioned above. I am a conservationist, in fact my pet 'cause' is ground water having worked as a hydrologist for the National Center for Groundwater Research from 1980-1982, but environmentalism is, IMO, extreme. I believe in moderation in most things, including with gun control laws, and allowing people to make their own choices rather than impose my will or beliefs on others.

Also, have you seen the quote "Protect our rights to arm bears!" YOU BET! In fact there is a t-shirt with that quote on it and picture of a bear with a submachinegun. There is also one about the 2nd Amendment being about our right to where short sleeve shirts, but the 'bare arms' became a typo to 'bear arms'.

Death penalty, don't know, the way we do it is awfully expensive with the appeals so it would be cheaper to do life without parole to reduce the litigation expense.

True, SOME JAMA articles are reviewed, but JAMA has a history of being an anti-gun publication and Kellerman may not have been subject to the same review. In fact, in the last 20 years I don't know of a single article supporting gun ownership and FBI figures showing the lives saved annually due to firearms. If you don't believe that JAMA doesn't review everything, especially when politically motivated, I ask that you remember that this is the magazine who ended up firing editor Dr. George Lundberg who published the piece about oral sex not really being sex in support of then President Bill Clinton's grand jury testimony. JAMA regularly publishes politcal advocacy pieces that are not submitted for review before publication. To see a history of JAMA's anti-gun bias check these links:
Most recently supporting restrictions of a constitutional right for misdemeanor violations. We don't lose the right to vote except for felonies. The Emerson case currently under review by the 5th Circuit Court will determine if a right can be denied for a misdemeanor regardless of what JAMA says. http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/31/gun.check/

From 1997 in support of safe storage: http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v284.../joc91749.html
That was before an 8 and 9 year old were murdered with a pitchfork in Merced, Ca. and the older sister couldn't get to the parents stored gun. From the Modesto newspaper. http://www.modbee.com/metro/story/0,1113,190742,00.html
from their dad: He said there was a gun in the house that the older sisters knew how to use, "but I had to put it away in a supposedly safe place. The only thing I forgot to put a lock on was my pitchfork."

When they did a review of the Brady Law and found little effect they decided that the law didn't go far enough. 'the pattern of implementation of the Brady Act does not permit a reliable analysis of a potential effect of reductions in the flow of guns from treatment-state gun dealers into secondary markets.' Duke Review did a good analysis: http://www.dukereview.org/viewarticle.asp?id=5

After all, you have been researching it almost as long as I have been alive

OUCH!!!!

One thing that cannot be refuted is that nobody has ever shown a gun to have a causal effect on deaths.

1. If they did how does one explain the low crime rate during a time when guns were being mailed directly to ones home, prior to 1968, and the fact that at age 9 (1966) I would ride my bicycle to the local 7-11 (Oklahoma City) and buy .22 ammo for my rifle? If the ease of access to guns is the cause of deaths due to firearms then we should have seen a much higher rate in the '50's and 60's than what we experienced in the 1980's.

2. If firearms are the cause of the problems we should see a uniform rate of firearm related death across geographical, age, racial, and economic boundries as we would for other things such as an anthrax outbreak? The distribution of 'problems' or 'problem areas' are not unifor, there are obvious anomalies.

3. If the number of guns within the population are a problem, how can we have experienced a steady drop in firearm related deaths for the last 10 years with millions of new guns being added to the supply every year?

OTMG - This was 'bestowed' upon me a few years ago by a police officer in Victoria, Tx. I had been involved in discussions on numerous computer BB's regarding selection of firearms based on various criteria and it seemed that I owned many of the firearms that were discussed. The officer made the comment that I 'owned too many guns' and from that day on I became Jeff the Owner of Too Many Guns, or Jeff OTMG.

More to follow on your first post later, but my research database had a new server installed last Friday and it is currently extremely unstable so getting the info I need is spread all over the web rather than having the links available in a couple of places.

[Miami1839]

SuperXO,

Wow. Right on

[SuperXO]

Jeff,
You keep referencing JAMA. I have not heard of the New England Journal as JAMA before. Perhaps you are instead talking about the journal of the American Medical Association? Typically, the former is referred to as NEJM. So, I don't know if you would say the same about NEJM, or COULD say the same, but having a subscription to several scientific journals of the same nature, highly doubt that a faulty article could be published and not totally refuted. However, science never purports to prove anything completely, especially something of this controversial nature, so I would be surprised to find out that NEJM takes the position that only pro-gun control articles can be published. That is in the worst sense unscientific. As a pillar of the scientific research community, NEJM must not take positions on issues, and I have not yet seen anything conclusive to that effect.

True, some ideas in California are a lot different than the rest of the country's, however, the same could be said for anywhere! And in fact, on split issues like this, abortion, etc., I would say that Califoria, NJ, NY are not unrepresentative of the country as a whole. In fact, it reminds me of the election map after it was all over in 2000. W. had the vast majority of land space, but Gore had more votes for him. Some conservatives mocked that Gore had half or 33% or whatever the land space that Bush did. Howeveer, I would remind them, and you on this issue, that land space does not vote, people do. And just the votes of the Western and Eastern Seaboard often may amount to more than the rest of the country combined. So, to say that just because only 4 or 5 states are liberal, does not indicate what percewntage of the population feels a certain way on a certain issue.

As for the cougar cubs, well...mountain lion's population levels are at risk....something I don't think we'll ever say about humans. So, directing money to make sure the species does not die off is a worthwhile cause, though the relative value is a morals-based judgement, by which I assume you are implying Californians (or some) have screwed up morals and values. It's all in the eye of the beholder!

You're absolutely right that guns don't cause deaths, people do. But, you reinforce my point that our society today does not possess the level of maturity or responsibility that it takes to operate and own these items. Perhaps they did a half century ago. Now, they don't. Even the ones who operate them legally sometimes get them stolen and their guns are then used for crimes. So, yes, we need to address the problem with our society, but addressing the symptoms of "disease" almost always has a benficial effect on the organism as well. Perhaps guns should only be taken away until people can and do prove they are ready for them. I do not agree that guns are a right. They are a privilege that are misused by many and that do not effect the quality of life for most people if taken away (I'm not talking about hobbies, here).

Also, if you are saying that Americans are just naturally violent (nature rather than nurture), isn't it useless to do anything but take the guns away? If something is due to one's nature, that means they are unable to be taught or trained differently. So, the only answer would be to not allow them access to objects that let them act out their violent nature? If you would not care to retract that it is just American's "nature," how do you propose to change the state of our country without reducing access to guns, yet also not being able to change genetically or biolgically inherited traits?


[This message has been edited by SuperXO (edited May 03, 2001).]