Gun ownership rights are under attack.

[Full-Auto]

It's great to find some common ground!

I agree that education should be the cornerstone of any policy which is looking to reduces deaths and accidents. Any good parents are always going to lock guns away, supervise the usage of guns, and ensure young people know what they are handling. Hence the weapon is much, much less of a problem to anyone else.

The only problem is, of course, is that not all parents are good parents.

Unfortunately no one teaches how to be a parent. Trial and error, trial and error.

 

[The Rabbi]

Isn't that what a fire arm ban is all about, making "you" "feel" safe?

No, it is about lowering the statistical probability that innocent people will be killed.

When the rate of death by gun shot wound in the USA is more than ten times what it is in most other western countries, any move to reduce the number of guns will also reduce the number of deaths.

In simple terms - a kid can't pick up an unlocked gun and shoot his little brother if there is no gun in the house to begin with.

That's a fallacy: fewer guns equals fewer deaths.
If you strip out the deaths of firearms wielded by black men between about 16 and 30 our death rate from firearms looks like any other country.
Again I ask: What "sensible" measures would you recommend? Every state has enacted some "sensible measure" and the result is always the same: those states with the most restrictions have the highest crime rates, and those with the easiest restrictions have the lowest rates.
And once more I'll ask: what is an "assault weapon"? And what is a "high lcalibre" weapon?

 

[Sodafin]

Rabbi -

No, it IS a fact that fewer firearms in society means less deaths, and it has been proven twice - both by the Harvard study, and by the study by Professor Kellerman.

Unless you can present solid, academic and peer-reviewed material that suggests otherwise, I can't see you have a basis for doubt.

It's also fairly obvious, of course - if US has 10 times as many guns as most similar nations, and 10times as many homicides, what does that tell us?

btw, If you don't know what an assault weapon is, try an online dictionary.

 

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi -

No, it IS a fact that fewer firearms in society means less deaths, and it has been proven twice - both by the Harvard study, and by the study by Professor Kellerman.

Unless you can present solid, academic and peer-reviewed material that suggests otherwise, I can't see you have a basis for doubt.

It's also fairly obvious, of course - if US has 10 times as many guns as most similar nations, and 10times as many homicides, what does that tell us?

btw, If you don't know what an assault weapon is, try an online dictionary.

The Kellerman study has already been shown to be faulty. Sorry, merely repeating it won't make it true.
I want to hear your definition. I am also waiting to hear what 'sensible" gun laws we ought to have. I am also waiting for an explanation of why Switzerland has ten times as many guns as other countries and a fraction of gun related deaths. Also for an explanation of what laws will prevent criminals from having guns.
Waiting. Waiting.

 

[Sodafin]

Rabbi -

I am not aware of any academic or genuinely scientific study which contradicts the findings of the Harvard or Kellerman studies. I don't mean what blogs say - I mean material which is genuinely objective and scientific.

Either present that material, or accept that no real evidence exists to suggest the studies are not well-founded.

I'm not sure why you are waiting for explanations which appear earlier on the thread.
I explained in some detail why Switzerland has high gun ownership but only a moderately high homicide rate i.e. because the guns are not purchased, but are given as part of compulsory military service, meaning that in practice many weapons are locked away and never used at all, thus skewing the rates.

We can come back to some of the other points once you have presented your case. When will that be, by the way?

 

[The Rabbi]

Kellerman study has already been debunked. Kellerman himself admitted his methodology was flawed. Nor do his findings really make much sense intuitively. Many of us have had guns around for years with no, zero, bad effects.
SO we can safely dismiss Kellerman as the basis of any argument here.

 

[Sodafin]

Kellerman study has already been debunked. Kellerman himself admitted his methodology was flawed. Nor do his findings really make much sense intuitively. Many of us have had guns around for years with no, zero, bad effects.
SO we can safely dismiss Kellerman as the basis of any argument here.

Right. And would I be right in thinking the excellent and very widely used Harvard study has also been "debunked"?

Can we see the scientific and academic research which established that?

In actual fact, there has been very little substantial criticism of the Kellerman study. An overview listed the only realistic criticism of being that the study was entirely urban, and actually cited some of the NRA criticisms as being baseless and even absurd.

Furthermore, the 1986 study was supplemented by a 1988 study with refined methodology, which compared Seattle with Vancouver and concluded:

* both cities had similar rates of burglary and robbery
* in Seattle, the total rate of assaults with any weapon was modestly higher than that in Vancouver
* rates of homicide by means other than guns were not substantially different in the two study communities
* the rate of assaults involving firearms was seven times higher in Seattle than in Vancouver
* the rate of being murdered by a handgun was 4.8 times higher in Seattle than in Vancouver.

Do you dispute these findings also? On what basis?

btw. I'm not sure what you mean by logic - saying you have had guns in your home with no ill effects makes no more sense than a smoker saying he hasn't had cancer - therefore smoking does not cause cancer. It's about probability, statistics and evidence.

 

[Bfgrn]

52nd street -

And yet we can look at any of a hundred acts of genocide that have taken place in extremely highly armed societies - Cambodia, Rwanda, even the Cultural Revolution all took place in societies where people had a lot of weapons in their homes. Massacres were conducted by Rios Montte, Cristiani, Pinochet...and yet all countries were well armed.

In no case that I am aware of has gun ownership prevented the use of force by a government against its own people.

By all means prove me wrong - name one.

Irregardless of the global atrocities you mention, you should not, and can not ban specific
weapons from the American citizenry.Its unconstitutional.
"A well armed millitia rights must not be infringed upon" this is in the Constitution of the United States sir, stop trying to change Americas Constitution.!!

Should citizens be allowed to own bazookas, rocket launchers, tanks, nukes??? Where is the cut off? When will you right wingers engage in adult conversation?

 

[The Rabbi]

Kellerman study has already been debunked. Kellerman himself admitted his methodology was flawed. Nor do his findings really make much sense intuitively. Many of us have had guns around for years with no, zero, bad effects.
SO we can safely dismiss Kellerman as the basis of any argument here.

Right. And would I be right in thinking the excellent and very widely used Harvard study has also been "debunked"?

Can we see the scientific and academic research which established that?

In actual fact, there has been very little substantial criticism of the Kellerman study. An overview listed the only realistic criticism of being that the study was entirely urban, and actually cited some of the NRA criticisms as being baseless and even absurd.

Furthermore, the 1986 study was supplemented by a 1988 study with refined methodology, which compared Seattle with Vancouver and concluded:

* both cities had similar rates of burglary and robbery
* in Seattle, the total rate of assaults with any weapon was modestly higher than that in Vancouver
* rates of homicide by means other than guns were not substantially different in the two study communities
* the rate of assaults involving firearms was seven times higher in Seattle than in Vancouver
* the rate of being murdered by a handgun was 4.8 times higher in Seattle than in Vancouver.

Do you dispute these findings also? On what basis?

btw. I'm not sure what you mean by logic - saying you have had guns in your home with no ill effects makes no more sense than a smoker saying he hasn't had cancer - therefore smoking does not cause cancer. It's about probability, statistics and evidence.

You're talking about a 20 year old study??
Please.
Even if any of that is true, so what? The U.S. has had 50 years of experimenting with various gun control schemes and the only one proven to reduce crime is shall-issue carry permits. This was even shown by the gov't's own health and human services study that concluded that they could not attribute ANY reduction in crime to gun control.

 

[Sodafin]

Yes, I'm talking about four studies, the oldest of which does date back twenty years, that is correct. Of course it would be nice to have more and newer research, but the four studies we do have certainly establish a very clear case. I am not aware of any academic or scientific studies which dawn vastly different conclusions.

For instance, the 1993 study concluded:

62% of victims of firearm homicides in their home kept a firearm in their home

23.9% of homicides occurred in the victim's home

After adjusting for other factors (such as a police-report history of violence in the home, a convicted felon in the home, drug or alcohol abuse in the home, race, etc.) there remained an independent 2.7 times increase in risk of homicide, specifically associated with a firearm in the home; this risk was not attributable to any particular "high risk" subgroup(s) identifiable by the above factors but was evident to some degree in all subgroups

These are remarkable facts, I think you'll agree.

 

[logical4u]

Rabbi -

No, it IS a fact that fewer firearms in society means less deaths, and it has been proven twice - both by the Harvard study, and by the study by Professor Kellerman.

Unless you can present solid, academic and peer-reviewed material that suggests otherwise, I can't see you have a basis for doubt.

It's also fairly obvious, of course - if US has 10 times as many guns as most similar nations, and 10times as many homicides, what does that tell us?

btw, If you don't know what an assault weapon is, try an online dictionary.

They have proven it with their 'slanted' criteria. In countries where guns are limited, machetes and clubs are used to kill other people. Why don't you do a study on the number of lives guns save every year? Why isn't that mentioned? It is an agenda to disarm the population so the population (by necessity) will rely on the gov (expand the gov, again). I find your arguements very selective, therefore irellevant.

 

[Full-Auto]

Yes, I'm talking about four studies, the oldest of which does date back twenty years, that is correct. Of course it would be nice to have more and newer research, but the four studies we do have certainly establish a very clear case. I am not aware of any academic or scientific studies which dawn vastly different conclusions.

For instance, the 1993 study concluded:

62% of victims of firearm homicides in their home kept a firearm in their home

23.9% of homicides occurred in the victim's home

After adjusting for other factors (such as a police-report history of violence in the home, a convicted felon in the home, drug or alcohol abuse in the home, race, etc.) there remained an independent 2.7 times increase in risk of homicide, specifically associated with a firearm in the home; this risk was not attributable to any particular "high risk" subgroup(s) identifiable by the above factors but was evident to some degree in all subgroups

These are remarkable facts, I think you'll agree.

I wont be as rude as my counter part, so lets start with this. good morning.

Serious Flaws in Kellerman

 

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi -

No, it IS a fact that fewer firearms in society means less deaths, and it has been proven twice - both by the Harvard study, and by the study by Professor Kellerman.

Unless you can present solid, academic and peer-reviewed material that suggests otherwise, I can't see you have a basis for doubt.

It's also fairly obvious, of course - if US has 10 times as many guns as most similar nations, and 10times as many homicides, what does that tell us?

btw, If you don't know what an assault weapon is, try an online dictionary.

They have proven it with their 'slanted' criteria. In countries where guns are limited, machetes and clubs are used to kill other people. Why don't you do a study on the number of lives guns save every year? Why isn't that mentioned? It is an agenda to disarm the population so the population (by necessity) will rely on the gov (expand the gov, again). I find your arguements very selective, therefore irellevant.

Even if eerything Sodafin says is true, then what? There are no laws that will insure that criminals don't have guns, only laws that will insure that decent law abiding people won't.
Education won't help, unless you make it mandatory starting with 2nd grade. This will take away the mysterious nature of guns for kids. It will not turn a criminal into an upright citizen however.

 

[The Rabbi]

In your stories on the recent tragic shooting in Espoo, Finland, you mentioned that Finland is among the top five nations in the world regarding civilian gun ownership. I assume the U.S. is also among the top five. What are the other three nations?

Andrew Gallagher

Costa Mesa, Calif.

___

There are 1.6 million firearms in private hands in Finland, which has 650,000 licensed gun owners — about 12 percent of the country's 5.3 million people. They include hunters, target shooters and gun collectors.

Finland ranks fourth in civilian gun ownership per capita after the United States, Yemen and Switzerland, and Serbia is fifth, according to a 2007 report on civilian firearms by the Small Arms Survey, a Geneva-based watchdog organization. It's the most recent report they've done on the subject.

After two school shootings in 2007 and 2008, the Finnish government began preparing tighter gun laws. But the antigun lobby in Finland is weak, especially in rural areas, where Finns say hunting traditions justify widespread gun ownership.

A 2002 government study found that 14 percent of homicides in Finland are gun-related. In the United States, nearly 67 percent of murders reported to police in the same year were committed with a firearm, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Matti Huuhtanen

Associated Press Writer

Helsinki

Guess that blows Sodafin's theory to smithereens.

 

[52ndStreet]

We have to vote out all the Gun control Politicians. Now!!

 

[keee keee]

Every state that allow the right to carry the crime rate went down. Why?

 

[52ndStreet]

Every state that allow the right to carry the crime rate went down. Why?

Criminals don't want to get shot while they attempt to rob you, ! thats why the crime rate
went down in those legal to carry states.!!

 

[ACG22]

I think the sensible compromise would be to require education and demonstrated proficiency. Make all weapons subject to licensing which requires firearm safety and handling techniques. It is a right that should not be removed as it is a cornerstone of our society. But our short history also shows the impact it's had on our society in the time since, and there are many negatives. What is wrong with learning from our past behaviors and addressing them?

 

[Missourian]

I think the sensible compromise would be to require education and demonstrated proficiency. Make all weapons subject to licensing which requires firearm safety and handling techniques. It is a right that should not be removed as it is a cornerstone of our society. But our short history also shows the impact it's had on our society in the time since, and there are many negatives. What is wrong with learning from our past behaviors and addressing them?

I don't think the illegal use of firearms is caused by a lack of either firearm education or a lack of proficiency...so what do you expect that to accomplish?

 

[Gunny]

I am begining to see an ever increasing attack on American gun ownership rights.
We can see that the assault weapons ban is the first major attack that is being perpertrated by the elements of the liberal left in America.

What are gun owners doing to combat this attack on a basic American right.?!

Excellent, I am delighted to see this.

Perhaps we will see more respect for the civil rights of the victims of gun violence, and a little less whining from the kind of people who think you need a 9 mm Uzi for duck hunting.

Which of YOUR Constitutional Rights are you willing to give up or should I arbitrarily choose one?

If the perpetrators of gun violence thought their victims were armed, there'd be less gun violence, but don't let THAT common sense math disturb you.