Where's the NRA

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

Hey Gunslingers, where are ole Charleton Heston's homeboys on this catastrophe?

Millions of new guns will be sold this Christmas season to law abiding U.S. Citizens. Some of them will even join the NRA. Americans like their guns and a vocal minority won't stop 1/2 the nation from using their second amendment rights.

We've just joined the NRA and have bought two semiautomatic rifles - before it's too late

Originally Posted by imfrankie

Hey Gunslingers, where are ole Charleton Heston's homeboys on this catastrophe?

This just came out late this afternoon...

WASHINGTON —
The National Rifle Association is breaking its silence four days after a school shooting in Newtown, Conn., where 26 were killed, including 20 children.

The nation's largest gun rights organization made its first public statements Tuesday after a self-imposed media blackout that left many wondering how it would respond to the killings. In its statement, the group said its members were, quoting, "shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders."

The group also said it wanted to give families time to mourn before making its first public statements. The organization pledged "to help to make sure this never happens again" and has scheduled a news conference for Friday.

Copyright The Associated Press

Right to bear arms is part of bill of rights.

Guns were purchased legally by the mother. There is nothing NRA, right wingers, left wingers, middle wingers can do to prevent the shooting.

3/4 of states can always vote to repeal 2nd amendment should they choose.

Just remember in China 20-28 students were stabbed by a crazy gut also. Can't stop this. Unfortunately.

Originally Posted by imfrankie

Hey Gunslingers, where are ole Charleton Heston's homeboys on this catastrophe?

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/18...ing/?hpt=hp_t2

Hard to object to that.

It's difficult to have a meaningful discussion with anti-gun people in the immediate aftermath of any event like this. Just look at the irrational and emotional trainwreck the other thread turned into.

A few days, some deep breaths, some time for reflection, and maybe the conversation will be more productive.

As a gun owner myself, I will be the first to say something needs to be done. Hey, don't get me wrong, I love to go shoot but we can't have any more of this BS. Its gotten to the point of absolute insanity.

First off, in this instance, the mother was absolutely at fault here. She shares as much blame as her crazy@ss son. If I knew that my kid was so ****ed up that he couldn't function in a normal society and it required me to have him see a psychologist and to be home schooled I sure as sh!t wouldn't take him target shooting. I wouldn't even think of keeping guns in the house.

How in the hell can I buy a gun after a 15min background check and then NEVER again have to prove I am competent to handle the gun or prove I still have it? Meanwhile, every year I have to pay to have my car registered and inspected. Every five years I have to renew my drivers license. Why can't we have a similar system in place for gun owners? Every few years, bring the guns you own down to the police station and have the serial numbers checked. Show that you know how to properly and safely store it. Show the gun is actually still in your posession.

Lastly, they had two FBI agents on the other night talking about the patterns that these types of killer show before their crimes. In EVERY instance these agents studied the killers showed a pattern of planning, training, stock-piling of weapons/ammo, and all showed signs of severe mental illness prior to their crimes and many had seen psychologist/psychiatrists. ? Why are we still allowing them to have guns?

Lost of people die on the road, we don't ban cars.

As long as there are crazy people, this stuff will keep happening.

We need to ban the crazies, not the guns.

Originally Posted by aneftp

Right to bear arms is part of bill of rights.

Just remember in China 20-28 students were stabbed by a crazy gut also. Can't stop this. Unfortunately.

None of these children who were stabbed died of their injuries.

And the 'bear arms' part of the second amendment is quite debatable the way it is presently understood.

Perhaps if there were large financial penalties, or even criminal penalties for your gun being used in a crime, Ms. Lanza would have done a better job locking them up. Of course that whole situation at her house sounds absolutely F'd.

Originally Posted by urge

Lost of people die on the road, we don't ban cars.

But we have state regulated licensure with on the road testing by trained examiners for one's first license, traffic laws that are enforced, drunk driving laws, seatbelt laws, national safety standards, and in some places (I think) distracted driving laws. Did I miss any?

Great example.

Originally Posted by urge

We need to ban the crazies, not the guns.

Agreed. Bring back institutionalization!

Meanwhile, let's keep a good eye out for the suicidal, since that seems to be a key ingredient in creating a mass murderer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/op...s.html?hp&_r=0

And if some little 20 year old freak shows up at your gun store pissed that he has to wait 14 days to buy a weapon, please let the local cops know about him.

Originally Posted by powermd

Agreed. Bring back institutionalization!

Meanwhile, let's keep a good eye out for the suicidal, since that seems to be a key ingredient in creating a mass murderer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/op...s.html?hp&_r=0

And if some little 20 year old freak shows up at your gun store pissed that he has to wait 14 days to buy a weapon, please let the local cops know about him.

I have to admit, I never gave much credit to waiting periods. i honestly sort of rolled my eyes at the silly aecurity-theater-ness of it, but it appears it may have actually worked as intended here. Still don't think they make sense for non-first-purchases, but it's an inconvenience I can't really object to.


As for licensing, and the car analogy, it's not quite as good as you think.

First, the only reason the government has the ability to regulate driving is because it pays for the roads. Want your 12-year-old to drive your unregistered car within the confines of your property? That's fine. Licensing and regulation are not universal, and are permitted in specific circumstances.

Second, driving is not a civil right protected by the Constitution, the way armed self defense is. The government should have a far higher threshold for regulating the latter. As I've mentioned before, we do not yet have a SCOTUS ruling on scrutiny here (but I bet we get one in the next 3-5 years, maybe sooner). I think that ruling will be strict, which will require a compelling gov interest, a narrowly tailored law, and the interest to be served in the least restrictive means. A better analogy would be if the gov required licensing, screening, and training to permit citizens to travel between states.


If the gun store had reported the suspicious behavior (and I agree they should make an effort to work with law enforcement in that way) what could the police have done? Is acting weird or impatient probable cause?

The NRA is laying low, knowing that conversation in the immediate aftermath is counterproductive for their agenda.

The person in the world who knew him best felt safe not only surrounding herself with guns that he had access to, but teaching him how to use them.

How could any mental health professional who spends a few hours with an individual make a reliable judgement given the above?

In a relevant development today:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/french-psyc...192855747.html

Originally Posted by powermd

And the 'bear arms' part of the second amendment is quite debatable the way it is presently understood.

It's less debatable now than it was a bare handful of years ago, before SCOTUS incorporated the 2nd Amendment and held that citizens have a right to keep arms for self-defense. The decisions stopped short of a clear ruling on the 'bear' bit too as it applies to carry, but there's now zero doubt that we have an individual right to own guns and keep them in a manner that makes them readily available for defensive purposes.

Originally Posted by powermd

Perhaps if there were large financial penalties, or even criminal penalties for your gun being used in a crime, Ms. Lanza would have done a better job locking them up. Of course that whole situation at her house sounds absolutely F'd.

Some states, California included, are already there. There's always civil risk if the injured party can prove negligence.

Negligence is not an easy thing to define, much less prove. What kind of safe, lock, etc is sufficient to prove good faith in securing weapons? Do you know how many gun safes on the market have had UL testing and certification, and how much they cost?

Devil's in the details, again. Are you really eager to turn the innocent victim of a gun theft into a criminal if the thief commits another crime?

Originally Posted by dr doze

In a relevant development today:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/french-psyc...192855747.html

That's a little bit too Code O' Hammurabi-ish for me ...

We talked about malpractice sliding into the realm of criminal prosecution a while ago during the Murray / Michael Jackson case.

Originally Posted by dr doze

The person in the world who knew him best felt safe not only surrounding herself with guns that he had access to, but teaching him how to use them.

How could any mental health professional who spends a few hours with an individual make a reliable judgement given the above?

In a relevant development today:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/french-psyc...192855747.html

Please! Everyone knew this kid was off. He was seeing the school psychologist prior to being pulled from school. That's enough to use some common friggin sense and lock the guns away. No mother wants to think their child is a monster, but facts prove otherwise.

Originally Posted by W222

How in the hell can I buy a gun after a 15min background check and then NEVER again have to prove I am competent to handle the gun or prove I still have it? Meanwhile, every year I have to pay to have my car registered and inspected. Every five years I have to renew my drivers license. Why can't we have a similar system in place for gun owners? Every few years, bring the guns you own down to the police station and have the serial numbers checked. Show that you know how to properly and safely store it. Show the gun is actually still in your posession.

My state does not have yearly car inspections, and I just renewed my license online - which I can do every 10 years assuming I don't move.

I'm no expert and I have no axe to grind (although I generally agree with the fewer guns= less mass murder crowd), but I thought this was an interesting perspective on the supposed right to bear arms portion of the 2nd amendment.

http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/...amendment.html

Originally Posted by cchoukal

I'm no expert and I have no axe to grind (although I generally agree with the fewer guns= less mass murder crowd), but I thought this was an interesting perspective on the supposed right to bear arms portion of the 2nd amendment.

http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/...amendment.html

And so, eventually, this theory became the law of the land. In District of Columbia v. Heller, decided in 2008, the Supreme Court embraced the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment. It was a triumph above all for Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of the opinion, but it required him to craft a thoroughly political compromise. In the eighteenth century, militias were proto-military operations, and their members had to obtain the best military hardware of the day. But Scalia could not create, in the twenty-first century, an individual right to contemporary military weapons—like tanks and Stinger missiles. In light of this, Scalia conjured a rule that said D.C. could not ban handguns because “handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”

So the government cannot ban handguns, but it can ban other weapons—like, say, an assault rifle—or so it appears. The full meaning of the court’s Heller opinion is still up for grabs. But it is clear that the scope of the Second Amendment will be determined as much by politics as by the law. The courts will respond to public pressure—as they did by moving to the right on gun control in the last thirty years. And if legislators, responding to their constituents, sense a mandate for new restrictions on guns, the courts will find a way to uphold them. The battle over gun control is not just one of individual votes in Congress, but of a continuing clash of ideas, backed by political power. In other words, the law of the Second Amendment is not settled; no law, not even the Constitution, ever is.


Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...#ixzz2FVjdFS26

Originally Posted by cchoukal

I'm no expert and I have no axe to grind (although I generally agree with the fewer guns= less mass murder crowd), but I thought this was an interesting perspective on the supposed right to bear arms portion of the 2nd amendment.

http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/...amendment.html

Interesting article, though certainly with its own bias.

In the context in which it was written "well regulated" meant "efficient and effective" not "subjected to administrative controls" ... idiom changes over time. It's too bad the authors didn't simply avoid the phrase and write what they meant more explicitly.

No one argues that assembly is only a collective right because the 1st Amendment refers to "the people" ... ALL civil rights are at their core individual rights.

But my biggest criticism of that article is that it falsely asserts that the 2A didn't protect an individual right until the NRA pulled some shenanigans starting in the 1970s. A more accurate view of history is that it did from day 1, until the nation suffered a century-long progressive chisel job on the 2A, starting in the post Civil War era (with gun control laws aimed at preventing all those newly freed slaves from getting uppity and defending themselves) ... and it took the civil rights movement and the NRA to begin repairing the damage.

I don't think it's intellectually honest to pick and choose which civil rights to respect (I'm not accusing you of this just making a statement). The pro-gun people who fight against gay rights are no better than the free speech advocates who want to limit the 2A to just hunting rifles. Worse, actually, because bigotry is less forgivable than well-meaning nannyism.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project.../secamend.html


The link above shows just how slim the majority is on this SCOTUS. It's 5-4 right now but just one more liberal Justice and my right to own guns is over.

PGG is correct when pointing out that Liberal Supreme Court justices have the power to strip me of all my firearms. All it takes is for just one Conservative Justice to die or retire in the next 3 years and the NRA is toast.

[IMG]http:www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Obama-gun-store.jpghttp://[/IMG]

I think we should encourage teachers, coaches and school staff to be trained as reserve deputies, and pay them more for that responsibility. They then would have advanced law enforcement and weapons training. If 3 or 4 people in that school were trained and carrying, the crime may have been stopped in the hallway.

Originally Posted by BLADEMDA

Of all the schoolteachers I've known in my life, I bet less than a dozen would have been interested in carrying. The profession self-selects a lot of gun averse people.

I would favor allowing them the option of being armed, same as any other person who chooses to be armed where they work, subject to the employer's policies. I wouldn't require or even encourage it though.

Visible security, esp uniformed police, seems a better deterrent, less controversial too. But it's not free.


ETA - to be more clear, I think private sector employers should remain free to declare their property gun-free areas. Their property, their rules. I don't think the government should be afforded the same policy latitude, at least in places where people are compelled to be, like schools, or in places that have very visible and capable security like courts and sterile airport areas.

Originally Posted by pgg

Of all the schoolteachers I've known in my life, I bet less than a dozen would have been interested in carrying.

I think of all the people I've known in my life, only 1% are interested in carrying. I don't think we are as much of gun culture as we used to be.

http://conservativevideos.com/2012/1...sault-weapons/

A "Love Connection" with assault weapons.

Guns Out of Stock at Wal-Mart as Magazine Prices Surge on



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...-surge-on.html

My sources state that new NRA membership is running about 8,000 new members a day since the Newtown CT murders.

When comparing the US to industrialized eastern countries we lead them by 12X in gun deaths. Moreover, a much larger percentage of eastern gun deaths are suicide; where, a larger percentage of our gun deaths are homicide.

The proliferation of guns has lead to a society that leads the world in gun related deaths - there is no spinning that. The notion that armament and proliferation of guns saves lives is a money-laced-message from the gun lobby to put their product in the hands of every man, women, and child.

"Be fearful - here is a gun - now you're safer"

I wonder if the same logic applies to nuclear proliferation? Why do we attempt to stop that again? Isn't an armed world a safe world?

EDIT: FYI I don't carry but own a shotgun for home self defense and a rifle for the hell of it. I'm not out right anti-gun but it's hard to argue with empirical evidence that more guns = more gun deaths. The question is: Can we copy what they do in the east? And if we can do we want to?

Sound Off: Health Care Providers Have a Role in Reducing Gun Violence

December 19, 2012




Physician and gun image courtesy Shutterstock.


By Lee C. Rogers, DPM

In the United States, over 30,000 people die every year from a suicide or homicide caused by a gun. That’s nearly as many as die from pancreatic cancer or automobile accidents.

The gun policy debate has been brought to the front of the national discussion since last weekend when a massacre at an elementary school in Connecticut left 26 dead, of which 20 were children aged 6-7 years. The shooter, barely out of his teenage years himself, used a Bushmaster .223 assault rifle with large capacity magazines. The medical examiner reported that all the children were shot more than once, and in one case 11 times.

The American Academy of Pediatrics identified firearm-related injuries in children and adolescents as an ‘epidemic,’ releasing data highlighting it as one of the leading causes of death in that population. The CDC reported that US children under the age of 15 were 12 times more likely to die from a firearm than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. The United States ranks eighth on a list of homicide rates by country, just behind Mexico.

Recently, an actuary calculated that gun violence collectively reduced the American life expectancy an average of 103.6 days. But that’s not equally distributed among the races or genders. The average life expectancy for African American males is reduced by 361.5 days as a result of gun violence. Additionally, gun violence costs the US about $100 billion annually, which is equates to the same amount of budget cuts that couldn’t be negotiated by the Congressional super-committee.

No one would argue a health provider’s role in rape prevention or domestic violence prevention. On every visit to my hospital, patients are asked if they feel safe at home. Doctors also discuss automobile safety and sports safety with patients as needed. But somehow providers have been sidelined during the debate on gun violence prevention. The National Rifle Association argues that doctors asking about gun ownership violates a patients’ Second Amendment rights. Some states have even passed laws to prevent doctors from asking about guns at home. The 2011 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) prevents military commanders from talking to service members about their personal weapons, even if they are suicidal.

Certainly mental illness is a component to mass murders, suicides and homicides. We need an action plan to better diagnose and treat of mental illness. But having policy to reduce access to deadly weapons is prudent, will save lives, and is a public health concern. Providers need to play a central role in preventing gun violence.

What can we do?

First is advocating for gun policy changes just as we have for smoking bans, helmet laws, and sports safety rules. A mass killing of 20 school children has caused enough public outrage to change the dialogue on gun control in the US.

Meaningful reforms start with a ban on assault weapons. No one needs an M-16 for self-protection or hunting. These are instruments of war. Just as we wouldn’t stand for landmines on our streets, we should not allow assault rifles in our neighborhoods. A ban on high capacity magazines will prevent a gunman from shooting 100 bullets without reloading. If we limit magazines to 10 bullets, which should be sufficient to protect yourself against a home invader or hunt a deer, we give people a fighting chance in future episodes of mass shootings.

Require 100% background checks on all gun transfers, commercial or private. This means closing the gun show loophole and requiring private sellers to use a broker or some other method to ensure the buyer can own a gun. As health care providers, we know that the severity of mental illnesses in a patient may wax and wane, but we need to create a federal definition of serious mental illness and exempt HIPAA compliance for reporting these to a national database.

During the treatment of mental illness, providers should ask about firearms in the house. We should counsel families to lock up the gun and trigger. In cases where a patient is at risk of performing self-harm, we should know where they can take the firearm to be deposited while their illness is being treated.

First person shooter video games are violent and desensitize individuals to killing. While a sane person knows fantasy from reality, a person with mental illness or children may not. We should advise caregivers not to allow these individuals to play these games.

I grew up in the Midwest where hunting and gun use was a part of our culture. If you haven’t been exposed to that, go sport shooting at a shooting range with an instructor so you can better understand gun safety and usage. You can place information about gun safety in your waiting room or on the wall in exam rooms.

Also, as a measure of personal safety, your clinic or hospital should have an action plan if faced with an individual with a gun. This is not an uncommon occurrence in hospitals. Assailants may be looking for drugs or to harm a provider or patient. You should have regular drills on what to do.

Health care providers do have a role in preventing gun violence, but it’s up to us if we choose to play that role. I argue that a trauma that cuts short the lives of 30,000 adults and children annually needs urgent action. While critics argue we’ll never be able to prevent all gun-related deaths, that is a poor excuse for not acting to prevent some of them.

Dr. Rogers is a podiatrist and health policy expert. He was a candidate for US Congress in 2012 in California. His SDN username is diabeticfootdr. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Student Doctor Network or Coastal Research Group.

interesting article, Blade. Are you in agreement with the strategies the author wrote about to reduce gun violence?

Originally Posted by yappy

When comparing the US to industrialized eastern countries we lead them by 12X in gun deaths. Moreover, a much larger percentage of eastern gun deaths are suicide; where, a larger percentage of our gun deaths are homicide.

The proliferation of guns has lead to a society that leads the world in gun related deaths - there is no spinning that. The notion that armament and proliferation of guns saves lives is a money-laced-message from the gun lobby to put their product in the hands of every man, women, and child.

"Be fearful - here is a gun - now you're safer"

I wonder if the same logic applies to nuclear proliferation? Why do we attempt to stop that again? Isn't an armed world a safe world?

EDIT: FYI I don't carry but own a shotgun for home self defense and a rifle for the hell of it. I'm not out right anti-gun but it's hard to argue with empirical evidence that more guns = more gun deaths. The question is: Can we copy what they do in the east? And if we can do we want to?

Thank you, Yappy. Well said.

D712

http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/...n-control.html

I usually avoid articles that purport there is a simple truth to anything, but if you can get past the schlock and hyperbole of the first few paragraphs there are some interesting analyses in the hyperlinks.

Originally Posted by yappy

interesting article, Blade. Are you in agreement with the strategies the author wrote about to reduce gun violence?

I do not own a gun, but I respect the rights of others to do so. That being said, I think the author makes a lot of good points. Some of them may be far fetched as far as implementation (no violent video games, turn in your gun during treatment etc). I think there is also opportunity to abuse the laws he is proposing to implement. If someone takes Prozac or a like drug, will they be banned or are we talking about schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders only? It can be a slippery slope and I have a general distrust for government's ability to do things in a fair, logical, and just way.
In other words, laws such as that will open the door to more restrictive laws. I think I pretty much agree that assault rifles should be banned. However, the criminals will still find a way to get them.

Originally Posted by Gern Blansten

I do not own a gun, but I respect the rights of others to do so. That being said, I think the author makes a lot of good points. Some of them may be far fetched as far as implementation (no violent video games, turn in your gun during treatment etc). I think there is also opportunity to abuse the laws he is proposing to implement. If someone takes Prozac or a like drug, will they be banned or are we talking about schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders only? It can be a slippery slope and I have a general distrust for government's ability to do things in a fair, logical, and just way.
In other words, laws such as that will open the door to more restrictive laws. I think I pretty much agree that assault rifles should be banned. However, the criminals will still find a way to get them.

You are far more likely to have a concealable handgun pointed at you than an assault-style rifle. Criminals aren't hanging out with AR-15s or AKs waiting to carjack you. They mostly aren't invading your home with any kind of long-arm gun.
Mass murder situations with ar-15s make the national news, but they are far far less common than getting held up or shot with a handgun.

Originally Posted by yappy

...it's hard to argue with empirical evidence

Yes, it is very hard to argue with empirical evidence.

Originally Posted by yappy

...that more guns = more gun deaths.

Is that what the empirical evidence demonstrates, or is that nothing more than an intuitive, "it's obvious" reaction to seeing higher gun homicide rates in the US? Frequently in medicine we find that empirical evidence runs counter to our clinical intuition. Given the high baseline rate of homicide, what does the evidence show about increases or decreases in that rate in relation to gun control measures.

Is there any empirical evidence that the sunset of the assault weapons and "high capacity magazine" ban led to higher gun homicide rates or higher rates of violent crime as predicted by Dianne Feinstein, Sarah Brady, et al?


A good starting point for looking at the empirical evidence is John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime. Kindle edition is only $5.13. Since I can't link to quotes directly from the book, I will link to a recent interview with the author.


Rounding up the Guns

...every category of violent crime has fallen, with the murder rate falling by about 15 percent between 2004 and June 2010. The recently released third edition of More Guns, Less Crime found that the six states that have their own assault-weapons ban saw a smaller drop in murders than the 44 states without such laws.

In every instance, we have data that show that when a ban is imposed, murder rates rise.

after the federal assault-weapons ban sunset, politicians and gun-control advocates lined up claiming that murder and violence rates would soar, but the opposite happened. So when gun-control advocates now claim that renewing part of the assault-weapons ban is essential to control violent crime, it would be helpful for reporters to once in a while call them on their past predictions.

The studies to support this are published in his book.


If you are going to invoke empirical evidence (and you should) consider looking at and presenting the empirical evidence.


- pod

Originally Posted by GypsySongman

You are far more likely to have a concealable handgun pointed at you than an assault-style rifle. Criminals aren't hanging out with AR-15s or AKs waiting to carjack you. They mostly aren't invading your home with any kind of long-arm gun.
Mass murder situations with ar-15s make the national news, but they are far far less common than getting held up or shot with a handgun.

I don't doubt that.

Originally Posted by periopdoc

A good starting point for looking at the empirical evidence is John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime. Kindle edition is only $5.13. Since I can't link to quotes directly from the book, I will link to a recent interview with the author.

I'm pretty sure he recanted all that and admitted he'd fudged the numbers. I googled it and all I came up with was some stuff on his Wiki page, a lot of which is, while not damning, at least calls into question the validity of his work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott

On April 10, 2006, John Lott filed suit[42] for defamation against Steven Levitt and HarperCollins Publishers over the book Freakonomics and against Levitt over a series of emails to John McCall. In the book Freakonomics, Levitt and coauthor Stephen J. Dubner claimed that the results of Lott's research in More Guns, Less Crime had not been replicated by other academics. In the emails to economist John McCall, who had pointed to a number of papers in different academic publications that had replicated Lott's work, Levitt wrote that the work by several authors supporting Lott in a special 2001 issue of the Journal of Law and Economics had not been peer reviewed, Lott had paid the University of Chicago Press to publish the papers, and that papers with results opposite of Lott's had been blocked from publication in that issue.[43]

I don't think this invalidates the IDEA that an armed populace could be associated with fewer violent crimes, but it seems like this is a pretty complex question to answer and, like in a lot of medical research, there are lots of ways to slice up the data, depending on your point of view; Lott's other areas of inquiry suggest his POV leans to the right and I can't help but wonder how that affected his analysis.

I am not a gunslinger so please educate me: can a person really go to a "gun show" and plunk down cash and pick up a piece without a background check and/or registration, and/or other invasive particulars?

Originally Posted by imfrankie

I am not a gunslinger so please educate me: can a person really go to a "gun show" and plunk down cash and pick up a piece without a background check and/or registration, and/or other invasive particulars?

It depends on what state you're in.

In every state, all dealer sales have to include a background check. In states that have a waiting period, you can plunk down your cash at the show, but you can't pick up the gun until X days have passed.

In some states, individual person-to-person sales do not require background checks. You can go to a person's house and buy a gun they're selling without a check. If you go to a gun show, and there's someone walking around with a for-sale sign for a gun, you could plunk down your cash in that person's hand and walk home with the gun, no check. This is the so-called "gun show loophole" though in fact most of these person-to-person sales don't occur at gun shows.


Despite how scary this sounds, it doesn't appear to be a significant source of guns used in crimes. The great majority of these are either purchased legally after a clean background check, or are ordinary illegal straw purchases made by friends or family members.

I wouldn't have a problem with requiring all person-to-person sales to go through a licensed dealer for a background check, though I also wouldn't expect any change in gun related violent crime from it. If THIS was the kind of "reasonable" and "commonsense" gun regulation that was being proposed, there wouldn't be much of a debate.

Originally Posted by cchoukal

I'm pretty sure he recanted all that and admitted he'd fudged the numbers. I googled it and all I came up with was some stuff on his Wiki page, a lot of which is, while not damning, at least calls into question the validity of his work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott

"Pretty sure, Wikipedia..." is that a solid foundation for empiric discussion? Did he or did he not recant and admit that he fudged the numbers? If you can't back it up, why would you even post it?

Where did you even get the idea that Lott "recanted and admitted he had fudged the numbers?" Certainly not from the Wikipedia page. Far from it, the 3rd edition of his book was published in 2010, and he continues to successfully defend his studies to this day. His raw numbers are available (except for one survey on defensive use of firearms that was lost in a hard drive crash), for anyone who wants to prove his findings wrong. So far there has been one mediocre and rather unsuccessful academic publication which attempted to do so. There is some validity to questions regarding the conclusions that he drew from his survey on the defensive use of firearms, but that is not the issue that we are discussing here.


Did you purposely leave out the next part of your Wikipedia quote?

"A federal judge found that Levitt's replication claim in Freakonomics was not defamation but found merit in Lott's complaint over the email claims.[44]

Levitt settled the second defamation claim by admitting in a letter to John McCall that he himself was a peer reviewer in the 2001 issue of the Journal of Law and Economics, that Lott had not engaged in bribery (paying for extra costs of printing and postage for a conference issue is customary), and that he knew that "scholars with varying opinions" (including Levitt himself) had been invited to participate.[45][/b]

Certainly Lott is a conservative and the focus of his research reflects that. Does this somehow invalidate his findings. I was unaware that left, though generally monopolizing academia, has a monopoly on accurate research? If his hypothesis is incorrect, and our intuitive sense that proliferation of gun ownership leads to more crime, if it is so obviously and overwhelmingly true that more guns does not equal less crime, then it should be fairly easy to refute his findings. 2nd amendment supporters are waiting.

- pod

Incidentally, Mr. Lott has a second, similar book that I highly recommend.

The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You'Ve Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong

Published 2003


-pod

Originally Posted by periopdoc

I was unaware that left, though generally monopolizing academia, has a monopoly on accurate research?

Seriously though, looks like Lott's got quite a few academic detractors.