Separate names with a comma.
Are you a current member with account or password issues?
Please visit following page for more information
Discussion in 'Handguns' started by jda, Dec 18, 2010.
Here's an interesting article, backed up by a research study, from the other side of the argument.
Read it back in 2006 (the actual paper,) but it is still not:
2) Peer accredited and reviewed.
3) In any way relevant to carrying hanguns (Since none of the countries in the EU allow this)
4) I hate to tell them but comparing statistics from East and West Europe is as useful as comparing statsitics from North and South America.
1) What do you mean by "independent"? You mean unbiased? As I said before, the NIH and AMA are notoriously anti-gun, so I certainly wouldn't call them unbiased. And I can't find anything about the "Firearm and Injury Center" at PSU Med School, but going by the name, and being as they're affiliated with a med school, my guess is that they're not the most objective organization, either.
2) What kind of peers? The two guys who wrote it were both criminologists. One was a Constitutional lawyer for some conservative and libertarian non-profit, and the other was a university professor in British Columbia. And, being as how the article was originally published in a Harvard Law publication, something tells me that it was reviewed by legal professionals all over the US.
3) I thought that was the point of the article. Countries in the EU don't allow carrying handguns, yet they still have a lot of violent crime, murders, and suicides. Less than the US, but the rates do not equate directly with the rates of gun ownership.
4) But the anti-gunners compare stats from America to stats from western Europe and the UK all the time. You think the UK and the US are apples to apples, but UK to Russia is not?
Well as a Police officer who is a Law Enforcement Firearms Instructor, and a Civilian Concealed Carry Instructor I am probably perceived to be biased already on the issue. I believe that a law abiding citizen with proper training in the use of that firearm should be allowed to possess and carry one if they so choose. However, I do think that a person who has neither the proper training, or the proper mindset should not be allowed to carry. I wish I could say that I am aware of a way to test for that proper mindset, but I do not know of a way. I do know that a person who feels more powerful and no longer feels the need to avoid a volatile situation because they are armed, should not be carrying and only risk getting themselves or an innocent bystander injured because of that poor decision making. Taking away all firearms will not solve the issue of innocent people being victimized with by maniacs with weapons. Knives and box cutters will never go away. Situational awareness is more helpful than most would give it credit for, and even so there will always be situations that arise that you can't avoid. Sometimes you just have to do the best you can with the situation you are presented with. Be well, be safe, and be prepared.
Someone who doesn't work for the National Firearms association.
If you make a causal link to statistics in paper you don't draw the conclusion without geting it reviewed and checked by a statistician, who put their name to it becoming co-authors. You can't give sources that are you, or your own work. No less than 30 times this paper takes it's source material from other "Work" by the authors. This paper like lot's of others for all kinds of subjects gets published without peer review or accreditation so that it can be quoted by pressure groups. When it was published it was dismissed but all they wanted was for it to be published.
You could write a paper tomorrow claiming that the moon is really made of blue cheese it would of course be disproved but the paper would still have been published. This one is even worse because it effectively says as we all know the moon is made of cheese so it follows that the milky way is really made of milk. footnote (Citing your own earlier paper or the subject)
See what I say about peer review below, you can make claims if they are supported by analysis that eliminates the other factors.
As I read it the point of the article was that countries in the EU that allow gun ownership have lower crime than their neighbours that do not. But they compare members of the Europen Union that allow gun ownership but have very strict controls on transport between home and ranges, ownership of ammunition and storage to war torn Belarus (The US government calls it an outpost of Tyranny) and post soviet Russia. A good example in what could generously be described as sloppy or more probably deliberately misleading work (That would be caught in the first read by any audit) they also compare the UK crime survey figures with the reported crime statistics from other countries. Reported crime is the measure used all over the world, here in the UK we prefer the crime survey as it is hopefully captures crime that doesn't get reported to the police. The comparable reported crime figure in the UK is less than half of the crime survey [45%] and much lower than that for violent crime especially when compared to the US. Here we count a threat to commit violence and posessing a weapon for self defence of any kind as violent crime wheras the US don't unless violence is used. So the crime survey looks for examples of where someone says they have been threatened with violence, been involved in a fight, been the victim of domestic violence, seen a weapon, carried a weapon and includes that as violent crime even if they never reported it to the police. Don't worry journalists all over the world, including here, love to publish headlines that say violent crime in London is worse than South Africa or Washington etc. because it's sensational and grabs attention. So it happens a lot just not in properly conducted academic studies.
That's the point of peer review I make the claim then others look to see if what I think is valid. It is apparently valid to compare Japan, Australia, The UK and Canada to the US because thay have similar standards of living, ethnic mix and other non violent crime, drug abuse etc.
I agree with everything you say, I have never said handguns should or especially could be banned in the US by legislation. I can't possibly judge that. I doubt they could be and if they could it probably would not be worth the effort. I am just disputing those who try to say the evidence shows that the liberal firearms laws have not caused any problems and have demonstrable benefits likewise that carrying a firearm as an individual is the best thing you can do . I think America is a great country, I just think overall it's not made any greater by allowing people to carry guns.
I often compare it to alcohol; I like and enjoy an occasional drink. I think most reasonable people can see that alcohol is responsible for a lot of problems even more so here than in the US. Despite my personal preference, and feeling that I am a sensible drinker, who has never done any harm as a result of it I think the world would be a better place if it could somehow be better controlled. However history shows us that can have inherent dangers that make the solution worse than the problem.
Hallelujah brother, preach it. You're very blessed to live in the 21st Century UK, where the government has been so successful in collapsing your oppressive Imperial Empire, on which the sun never set, while doing so much toward establishing and promoting a healthy and safe island community with a 9 p.m. curfew. I'm sure you feel very peaceful and safe living with no gun, a video camera watching you from every angle, with a government that wants your paycheck sent to them first, so that they can determine and extract just the perfect amount of tax from it (that they feel you should be paying, before sending you what's left), and where your thought police can arrest those nasty Christian street ministers who have the nerve to tell others what the Bible teaches. Yes indeed, your posts continue to reveal, at least to me, just how much we in America are missing out on, with our archaic ideas of individual freedoms and self-determination. I can only hope that someday we in America will see the light, and recognize the many benefits of giving up those individual freedoms for the comfort of more regulation set forth by the government and enforced by the police, the only two groups competent enough to take care of themselves and of setting the rules for everyone else (and supported by very liberal but "independent and peer reviewed" research on such topics, of course) . Yes, an American can hope!
On a sidenote, hey, I remember reading something in the English papers a few years back, about how within a matter of a few short years, snow would be just a distant memory in the UK due to the effects of global warming. Might I say, I hope it's a different school of researchers you have working to determine the impact of firearms ownership on the personal safety of law abiding citizens, because if it's not I just might have to adjust my high opinion expressed above.
Wasn't it Churchill who said, "I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly."??
Some interesting reading...
Lions and tigers and bears, Oh My!
That was exceptionally well written, and delectably sarcastic twaddle. For one who preaches the benefits of freedoms, you don't half know how to jump down the throat of someone who thinks differently from you.
"Oh look there goes someone who questions my core beliefs ... he must be a fool. I know what I can do - I can turn his bid for an open and amicable discussion into an attack on his nation, in such a way as to try and make him appear deleriously ignorant for not being everything that I am. There that showed him! Oh, wouldn't it be great if everyone was me"
What?? Why does ANYONE on here who tries to open us discussions about firearms (and often other topics too), get their statements and opinions twisted out of all proportion, get called a hoplophobe (when very often not the case), and face overdefensive nationalistic rhetoric? There are more colours than just black and white, and all the colours have various shades too.
WillCAD ... you wouldn't fancy giving forum workshops into how to conduct constructive debates would you? There's quite a few on here could do with your help.
... Great post!! I tried posting something quite similar once, but it got shot down (pardon the pun) cos I'm a Brit and thus of course a rather backward and hoplophobic social/political degenerate ... in other words ... open-minded, which of course is the ultimate sin in some topics
BINGO!!...you've expressed exactly how I feel after reading many of the posts here from your ilk. Thanks for your assistance. Again, that is exactly how I feel after reading the UK antigun sentiment that Vinny and some others in the UK insert into so many good pro-gun threads. Seriously, amazes me that you can see this so clearly in terms of how it applies to you and yours, but can't see so clearly the hypocrisy of your comments.:brickwall:
I do want to make it clear that I really don't want to insult the U.K. or the English people. My comments are directed toward a few very verbal individuals from the UK. who seem to spew the same anti-gun rhetoric in every thread, and then expect us to defend and provide support against it. It's just a little hard to be condescended to by a few who think they know better, when obviously the don't.
Another example of the ethnocentrism of the arrogant, too confused by their own politics to see that they are exactly the opposite of who and what they claim to be, while acting like exactly who/what they accuse others of being. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the OP ever intended for this to turn into a gun rights debate. I think he was just expressing his appreciation of an article with which he shares a viewpoint.
I apologize to the moderators ahead of time for my sarcastic comments, and I will not expand on them further.
Keep it civil, gents. Take it to PM.
I love it, very very well said.
Vinny, my mother always said "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.''
You apparently do not like guns, so then why do you post so often in the HANDGUN section of the forum?
I will leave it at that.
Sorry I wan't aware I had said anything that wasn't nice, if I did then I apologise point it out to me and I will edit or explain it. As for not liking guns I like guns just fine I was shooting over 20 years before you were born. I regularly carry them, but I also try to look at the pros and cons of anything. I have been unlucky enough to deal with the nastier elements around the world and seen my share of violence and the effects of it. My limited experince and my studies show that carrying a gun is not much help and other things would do far more good. I have asked several times for credible evidence of the benefits of carrying handguns for self protection either over teh alternatives I suggest, or even to not acrrying at all. There seems to be very little evidence that suggests otherwise no matter which country it comes from. I think the threads will be quite short on here if only people who agreed with the opening post were allowed to post.
I have no idea what sparked the anti UK post? I am fairly sure I didn't attack America in fact, in this thread, I said that America was a great country unless thinking carrying guns in a public place is not a good idea is attacking America, then most Americans are also attacking America.
I suppose that I should have put it a little more directly, my understanding from reading your posts is that your aganst civi's owning firearms is that correct?
If so, then seeing as this thread (and board) is mostly about civilian gun ownership, my question is why do you constantly preach against civilians owning firearms?
In other words "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.''
Carrying guns and owning guns are 2 different things. I am indifferent on the latter and against the former. Is saying that in some way not nice?
No, I'm not saying that you have been disrespectful or "not nice." What I am saying is that it seems rather rude to repeatedly de-rail PRO-rkba threads.
As for carrying guns and owning guns being seperate, I do not see it that way. The second amendment clearly states "the right to KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be infringed", KEEPING a firearm in your home is directly related to the right to BEAR that same firearm.
If I didn't say it before, let me say it now, I have nothing against the U.K, and my comments weren't meant to be "anti UK". If I offended anyone based on their geography, I sincerely apologize. In fact, I have both Stoddards and Metcalfe in my family tree (some of which came to the U.S. from England as recently as the 20th century), and I'm proud of that English heritage.
That said, Vinny, I just don't see how you're sharing your opinions concerning gun control, are any different than me sharing my view of the patronizing and excessive legislation of the Nanny State. Your view isn't any more (or for that matter any less) "anti-America" than mine was anti-UK. Its neither here not there, but it disturbs me that political correctness always tries to claim that it is somehow more noble than the opposing side, when in fact it is not. As I've said before we are both putting forth a "Worldview" argument. It's your presuppositions against mine. You will find evidence to support your view. I will find evidence to support mine. We will each discount the others evidence. Nothing more noble, or "open-minded", or scientific, or "anti" than that.
I agree with the article. For thoes with a negative attitude towards the concept of the article please consider where you live. There are differences in views that can get people killed. He who hesatates dies.
When I went to the police acamedy way back in 1980 (I am dating myself and showing that soceity was bad even 30 years ago) my instructor, a former NYPD officer, was my instructor in my legal aspects of firearms class.
I will always remember this one fact that I was taught;
If you do a traffic stop in New York or England where the gun laws are harsh it will be rare that the vehicle you stop has a gun in it.
If you do a traffic stop in Florida (the Gunshine State) it will be rare that the vehicle you stop Does Not Have A Gun In It.
After 30 years on law enforcement, I can confirm this teaching. In all these years I have never had a problem with a gun on a law abiding citizen!
The concept of the article has merit and gives a great concept from an educational standpoint, unless you are a liberal, then there is no talking to you.
Here are some tips for good debating techniques:
* Always debate FACTS, never emotions. You might have strong feelings on a subject, as I do, but don't use your feelings as your argument, use verifiable facts to counter the other guy's verifiable facts, otherwise you're just a frustrated child calling people names.
* NEVER call anyone pejorative names. That's not debating, that's just juvenile. And it makes you look like an inarticulate douchebag.
* Always respect the other guy's right to an opinion, no matter how much you might disagree with that opinion. The other guy may be the Grand Wizard of his neighborhood, or Karl Marx's love child, or the grand-nephew of Adolph Hitler, but everybody is entitled to their opinion, and everybody is entitled to EXPRESS their opinion - which is the heart and soul of the concept of Free Speech.
* The very best way to counter the validity of someone's opinion of something is to use the Jesse Jackson method. Some years ago, Jesse Jackson posited that if you take a statement about race and switch black to white, and it makes white people angry, then it's a racist statement. I broaden that to include any us vs them position - if you repeat the other guy's words, switching your position for the other guy's, it will often reveal the other guy's predilection for double standards or unfairness. Not as much a valid technique in gun rights discussions, but great when you get a bunch of people yelling for radical action against Muslims or illegal aliens.
* If someone else starts calling you names instead of posting fact, you win. Personal insults, and protestations of some kind of moral, ethical, or intellectual superiority, are the last resort of those for whom the facts fail to prove a point.
* Always keep calm. Post in anger, and youwill not only violate #2, but you'll post sloppily and sound like you're an idiot, which undermines your opinion.
* Most importantly, never be afraid to change your mind. LISTEN to the other guy's position; he may, indeed, have a valid point or two in there, and if you flat out refuse to accept it when he posts a verifiable fact or a reasonable position, then you not only look like a moron, but you actually ARE a moron.
Apologies everyone, particularly dmattaponi. I wished to illustrate that it’s not nice to be ridiculed on the boards, and the way I did that could have been better (No excuse – but it’s been a rough week, and I brought outside stresses to the boards)
Of my ilk? Me and mine? My hypocrisy? I think you misunderstand my stance. Firstly, I do not speak for anyone else. I generally tend to get drawn into these arguements sorry errrm ... animated discussions ... when things start getting personal or nationalistic, and tend to try and open up the discussion to quell tensions and allow room for more than one perspective in the conversation. I have posted pro-gun comments before only to be told I am a hoplophobe or similar, and have tried to open up the conversations to suggest there are more than two perspectives in such topics, only to be told “my type” cannot see the “obvious truth”. You are correct, I do not see any hypocrisy in my own statements – though feel free to PM me with any details if I have been – but please try not to attributes other's comments to me. We may be geographically linked but do not necessarily share the same views
I fully accept there ARE those who are anti-gun, and who are disrespectful towards others perspectives on the question of firearms (and indeed other topics) as well of those who take an opposite (or different) stance, but I think that much on what VinnyP has said has been handled very well AND not anti-gun but seeking a more open discussion, although the PERCEPTION of the British (and other nations) may have prevented the intended message from being understood. That’s why I held off so long in this particular thread. I think the main thing missing from these threads is the ability for folk to LISTEN to others opinions with an open mind – on ALL sides (Not both – there ARE more than two perspectives). The threads get tense as people are trying to CONVINCE the other parties, rather than trying to UNDERSTAND the other parties, and when differing elements start doing this ... well ... threads get closed.
I’ll hold off with my actual comments for this topic as they’ve been posted (and misconstrued – LOL) elsewhere before
Again, apologies to anyone who may have been disgruntled by my earlier comments – they could have been handled better [FONT="]