Larry Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 WMD? FEAR,FEAR,FEAR You're right. We should not mention 9/11 and OKC as things that we should try to prevent. Larry will tracing guns prevent these mass shootings? Will it prevent all of them? Absolutely guaranteed not. Will it prevent some of them? That's a much harder question to answer. (And my opinion is that, even if we do it, we still won;t know, for certain, after we do it. After all, how can you produce reliable proof of something that didn't happen?) Might it? Yeah, I think so. But if so, it will be in subtle ways. Like, will making guns traceable encourage some gun owners to be more responsible with storing them? I think it's a safe bet that some of them will. (Will it be a statistically significant number? Much harder to say.) Enlighten us. Also be sure to include gay folks, too. I'm sure they'd love to hear about all the rights they've lost in the last 50 years. Please drop this. The thread's a train wreck already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 leaving your guns and your kid unattended , two strikes raising a bully ...three 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 But, remember. Any person who attempts to say that easy access to a gun was a factor in this case, is "blaming the gun". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 This thread is unfortunately the gun debate in a nutshell. The two sides are too far apart, and there's not enough data for one side to definitively discredit the other. The result is inaction. Hindsight being 20/20, the former Congressman who spearheaded the ban on research for the CDC has regrets. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jay-dickey-regrets-amendment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 But, remember. Any person who attempts to say that easy access to a gun was a factor in this case, is "blaming the gun". is that so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Again, studies show there are laws that reduce murders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 (edited) These debates usually don't go well, so I've just been reading the last 2 days.. But something that I believe both sides should be able to get on board with, is holding the media responsible for sensationalizing the names/faces of these killers.. The Sheriff in Oregon said they didn't want to give his name or bring any attention to him, and as Im watching NBC's Lester Holt report on it, he reaffirms the Sheriffs request, and the very next sentence is the killers full name and a picture posted of him taking up 2/3 of the tv screen.. IMO, the act of killing people is just a part of these psycho's agenda. The fame and notoriety play a big part too.. That's something we could take away, if we wanted to.. Why is a movie like Black Mass (or American Gangster, Matrix etc.) popular? That IMO shines a light onto the problem. We are a culture who enjoys violence recreationally and guns are the tool of choice because of the ease of obtaining them and the most bang for the buck. Are we surprised when those among us cross the line from entertainment to real life or revenge? Edited October 6, 2015 by Zguy28 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Why is a movie like Black Mass (or American Gangster, Matrix etc.) popular? That IMO shines a light onto the problem. We are a culture who enjoys violence recreationally and guns are the tool of choice because of the ease of obtaining them and the most bang for the buck. Are we surprised when those among us cross the line from entertainment to real life or revenge? Actually, Hollywood mostly reinforces the most far-fetched gun fantasy. The "good guy with a gun that shoots all the bad guys and saves the day" trope. That is, by far, the most pervasive gun-related movie plot....and it is absolute fantasy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Again, studies show there are laws that reduce murders. certainly http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/readers/2014/08/19/studies-show-right-carry-laws-reduce-crime/14297343/ about two-thirds of peer-reviewed research by economists and criminologists find that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime. And no one finds higher murder, rape or robbery from concealed handgun laws. and I agree that is not the only way http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExoDus84 Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 certainly http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/readers/2014/08/19/studies-show-right-carry-laws-reduce-crime/14297343/ about two-thirds of peer-reviewed research by economists and criminologists find that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime. And no one finds higher murder, rape or robbery from concealed handgun laws. and I agree that is not the only way http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/ That first link you posted in BS. It's just somebody stating that research proves concealed carry laws reduce violent crime. Where are the links to the data? It's just Hearsay. You're also posting opinions from somebody who is well known to be exceedingly pro-gun, to support your pro-gun position. See a conflict there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 That first link you posted in BS. It's just somebody stating that research proves concealed carry laws reduce violent crime. Where are the links to the data? It's just Hearsay. You're also posting opinions from somebody who is well known to be exceedingly pro-gun, to support your pro-gun position. See a conflict there? Somebody?.....a academic ,ya science denier ou CPRC was founded by Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., an economist and a world recognized expert on guns and crime. Lott has held research or teaching positions at various academic institutions including the University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, and Rice University, and was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission during 1988-1989. He is currently a Fox News columnist. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA. Lott is a prolific author for both academic and popular publications. He has published over 100 articles in peer-reviewed academic journals and writteneight books, including “More Guns, Less Crime,” “The Bias Against Guns,” and “Freedomnomics.” His most recent book is “Dumbing Down the Courts: How politics keeps the smartest judges off the bench.” Nobel laureate Milton Friedman noted: “John Lott has few equals as a perceptive analyst of controversial public policy issues.” Who ain't biased in your world??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Larry will tracing guns prevent these mass shootings? No because we already find out where the guns come from. It's the regular, every day gun violence that it would help with. We're trying to solve a problem and we don't have enough information on. The logical step from here is to get more information. Unfortunately that doesn't seem doable, because people don't trust the government with the information. So we're kind of stuck guessing and then arguing about who's right or wrong about the impacts certain steps would have, but at the end of the day we're missing information and (to some extent) guessing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Yay! John Lott. Of course. We all knew he would pop up now. The least honest "expert" in all of academica, folks. Here he is. John Lott is, without exception, the most prolific and influential writer on the topic of gun violence and gun control. He has credentials that would make most academics envious—with various stints at Stanford, Rice, UCLA, Wharton, Cornell, the University of Chicago and Yale. According to LexisNexis queries, his op-ed pieces have appeared in newspapers at least 161 times. He has been referred to in more than 1,100 newspaper columns. Lott’s most famous book, More Guns, Less Crime, has been referenced by major news publications at least 727 times. The lobbying arm of the National Rifle Association, the Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), has spotlighted Lott’s scholarship at least 140 times on their website. After every mass shooting or national gun violence tragedy, Lott is the de facto talking head for the pro-gun community on news programs such as Fox News. He has also testified numerous times in front of Congress and state legislatures, having been a critical voice in the expansion of Right-to-Carry (RTC) laws. Yet his daunting resume fails to tell the entire story. While his initial research was groundbreaking, further examination revealed numerous flaws. Today the “more guns, less crime” hypothesis has been thoroughly repudiated. On closer inspection his impressive credentials reveal an academic nomad, never able to secure a place in academia. His ethical transgressions range from accusations of fabricating an entire survey, to presenting faulty regressions, to creating elaborate online personas to defend his work and bash critics, to trying to revise his online history to deflect arguments. And this doesn’t even begin to cover the whole host of false claims and statistics he has peddled repeatedly in articles and TV appearances. ..... Time and time again Lott has abused his academic credentials to peddle falsehoods. Instead of soberly presenting evidence, and letting the research speak for itself, Lott instead authored his own fan-base, fabricated evidence, manipulated models, mischaracterized data, and then attempted to bulldoze anybody that dared question the authenticity of his research. This is not the behavior of someone who is interested in truth-seeking; it is the behavior of an ideologue who is concerned only with making his opinions as loud and virulent as possible. If anyone has the patience to read a very long and detailed destruction of Mr. Lott, his methods and his academic honestly, here it is in great detail. http://www.armedwithreason.com/shooting-down-the-gun-lobbys-favorite-academic-a-lott-of-lies/ 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Ben Carson: Blocking gun rights worse than 'body with bullet holes' http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/10/ben_carson_taking_away_gun_rig.html Sigh... Physician heal thyself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Ben Carson: Blocking gun rights worse than 'body with bullet holes' http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/10/ben_carson_taking_away_gun_rig.html Sigh... Physician heal thyself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Ben Carson: Blocking gun rights worse than 'body with bullet holes' http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/10/ben_carson_taking_away_gun_rig.html Sigh... Physician heal thyself. Well, see there? Some people just value some things more than others. Bullet riddled bodies are simply the price some people have to pay, for some people's fetishes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 (edited) The right to fire a gun doesn't end where the bullet holes begin, I guess. - Doc Carson (channeling his inner anti-Oliver Wendell Holmes) That's a made up quote. Edited October 6, 2015 by The Evil Genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Give the man a break, folks. He's trying to get the Republican base to pay attention to him, instead of Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 (edited) http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/06/us/oregon-umpqua-shooting-mother-online-posts/index.html Online writings about guns, Asperger's linked to Oregon shooter's mom The apparent online writings of the mother of the man who killed nine people at a community college in Oregon discuss guns and the autism spectrum, painting a partial picture of the environment the family lived in, their beliefs and the challenges they faced. Online posts linked to Laurel Harper, mother of the gunman, are limited and incomplete, but they seem to indicate two things: that her son, Chris Harper-Mercer, had a developmental disorder, and that the family had a familiarity with firearms and gun laws. Laurel Harper's apparent online writings come in the form of posts to several websites, usually about health topics. The bulk of the postings were on forums such as Yahoo! Answers and comments on NurseTogether. Public records link Harper to the same email address used in these posts from a Yahoo! user calling herself "Tweety Bird." The postings, first reported by The New York Times, make references to Harper having a son who has a disorder on the autism spectrum and of the family having strong pro-gun views. In response to a question posted on Yahoo! Answers three years ago, the account linked to Harper complains about "lame states" that consider a loaded magazine inside the home the same as having a loaded gun. "I keep all my mags full. I keep two full mags in my Glock case. And the ARs & AKs all have loaded mags. No one will be 'dropping' by my house uninvited without (acknowledgment)," the user Tweety Bird wrote. Edited October 6, 2015 by visionary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 (edited) Yay! John Lott. Of course. We all knew he would pop up now. The least honest "expert" in all of academica, folks. Here he is. If anyone has the patience to read a very long and detailed destruction of Mr. Lott, his methods and his academic honestly, here it is in great detail. http://www.armedwithreason.com/shooting-down-the-gun-lobbys-favorite-academic-a-lott-of-lies/ The statistical test that Lott did actually would indicate that robberies were up due to concealed weapon laws (a point frequently left out when people talk about Lott). It is hard to imagine scenarios where robberies would go up because of concealed weapon laws, but things like murder would go down. The Brookings Institute actually did a nice analysis and review of the situation. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/press/books/2003/evaluatinggunpolicy/evaluatinggunpolicy_chapter.pdf Steve Levitt (of Freakonomics fame) has done something more recent. http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf There is other work out that shows states with lenient concealed weapons laws tend to have less murders, etc. The problem is those studies don't control for other factors in between states that we know that tend to be related to crime. These weaker studies end up having to conclude things like differences in states might be contributing factor and don't eliminate basic possibilities like more violent areas have introduced more strict gun laws. Studies that look at a single state before and after changes in concealed weapons laws find reduction in restrictions if anything are bad. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/260270901_Repeal_of_the_concealed_weapons_law_and_its_impact_on_gun-related_injuries_and_deaths "After the enactment of SB-1108, GRIDs increased by 11%. Homicide by firearms increased by 24% among those individuals involved in violent crimes and by 27% among the entire at-risk population. Legislation such as Arizona SB-1108, which allows an increased prevalence of concealed firearms in public places, does not act as a deterrent to homicide. However, it may in fact contribute to an increase in gun-related injury" Where SB-1108 reduced restrictions on concealed weapons in AZ. In addition, within state (so we don't have to worry about state to state comparisons) indicate strong defense laws increase violence while doing little for preventing things like robberies. http://jhr.uwpress.org/content/48/3/821.short I'm actually not anti-concealed weapons across the board, and I suspect they do some good if you have requirements in terms of training. Edited October 7, 2015 by PeterMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 I have no problem keeping an open mind about the effect of concealed carry. I'd like to see more honest studies about it. But I also know that John Lott is a liar and a fraud, and that HIS studies are not honest. Which is why he is on Fox News every 15 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 (edited) http://www.khou.com/story/news/2015/09/27/one-man-injured-after-carjacking-shooting-at-gas-station/72923278/ Houston police responded to a shooting call around 11:15 p.m. Saturday at a Valero gas station on Jensen Drive at Reid Street in north Houston. Officials say two men jumped another man in the gas station parking lot and took the victim's Chevrolet pickup truck. Police say a witness then pulled out a gun and began shooting at the suspects, accidentally hitting the carjacking victim in the head. Take that, multiply it by 20, then add in a healthy dose of fear, adrenaline, and confusion, and you have what is most likely to happen when some random gun owner tries to go Rambo during a mass shooting. Edited October 7, 2015 by mistertim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 (edited) **** happens addrd if you prefer to wait your turn in line for execution it is certainly your right. maybe if ya beg well they will be merciful. added The victim was transported to a nearby hospital where he remains in stable condition I wonder if the eight murdered the other day would take that as a + ? Edited October 7, 2015 by twa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandymac27 Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Maybe I'm completely wrong for feeling like this, but when children and innocent people are dying over this bull****, then I'm perfectly fine with taking away my constitutional right to bear arms. I'm sorry but I'm too emotionally involved right now to think straight or come up with some solution. All I know is too many innocent people have died. What if it was your son, daughter, mother, niece, etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 **** happens addrd if you prefer to wait your turn in line for execution it is certainly your right. maybe if ya beg well they will be merciful. If its a choice between getting the hell out of there and helping others get the hell out, and pulling out my glock and firing at a moving target in the middle of a bunch of other moving people while jacked up with adrenaline and confusion, then the former is a far better option. I'm far more likely to do more harm than good with the latter. Much more likely to kill extra innocent people than the shooter unless you can somehow get up close to him before getting shot yourself. Maybe I'm completely wrong for feeling like this, but when children and innocent people are dying over this bull****, then I'm perfectly fine with taking away my constitutional right to bear arms. I'm sorry but I'm too emotionally involved right now to think straight or come up with some solution. All I know is too many innocent people have died. What if it was your son, daughter, mother, niece, etc? Eh, you know what they say. Can't make a freedom omelette without breaking some freedom eggs. Or murdered children. But its worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts