Pod,
Lets be honest,
1) if I didn't have an excellent understanding of stats, I wouldn't be on this board or on my larger pathway. So please don't ignore the stats I've posted.
2) you can twist and ignore stats all you want, these guns are not reasonable weapons.
3) assault weapons. Justice Scalia had a thought about AWs, have you read his thought? A basic grasp of cons law will show you that the 2nd amendment is up for grabs in terms of reasonable limits. You seem to think I don't know what an AW is. It's not a glock. Ask Dianne Feinstein what an assault Weapon is. Reloading after 10 rounds isn't an infringement on your 2nd amendment. At least, it won't be.
4) please prepare yourself for #3
5) this idiot on face the nation this morning, won't even say the term assault weapon without saying "so-called." More bullets, faster bullets, larger and more devastating wounds kill more. See Scalia comment. Twist it all you like. The Harvard paper was quoted this morning on face the nation. Really simple: more guns = more homicides.
6) I hope you can grasp the stats of that Harvard paper, they are REALLY SIMPLE. twist and ignore all u like. I've posted many stats in the other thread about deaths
When AWs and LCMs are used.
7) 30000 gun related deaths in the US. u don't think guns need to come off the street as a FACET of the solution?
8) mind boggling.
9) your chart pays attention to the 29,900 deaths (by handguns). Or so.
That needs addressing too. Big time. Limits. less guns on the street. Etc. we are talking about mass murders -- specifically - the kids thing and protecting them. That's the current zeitgeist. In that regard, mosey over to the other thread and check out the 9mm vs AW stats. One step at a time. One limit at a time. And yes, the Harvard study is clear: less guns and maybe we won't be the embarrassment of the developed world. When it comes to guns.
D712
Pod addressed your points, now you may disagree with his comments but he took a significant amount of time to address the studies. How did you respond?
You bring up other information that doesn't address any of his points. This is frustrating because I was looking forward to your responses and hoping to learn from them. I'll address your numbered responses above.
1. The overwhelming majority of people with a medical degree hate statistics and have a minimal understanding of it. So stating that because you are on this board and are traveling along the medicine pathway makes you a statistical ninja is wrong. I believe you know and understand statistics, but I also believe you are choosing to ignore it. What statistics have you posted? You've posted numbers, that are lacking statistical analysis to show if they are significant or not. If the studies have this information and you are not posting it, then the fault lies with you. However, if the studies lack statistical analysis then the problem lies with the studies and speaks of their quality.
2. This is your opinion that these are not reasonable weapons.. Just as the others have their opinion. Pod, et al. are analyzing the studies you posted, what is wrong with that? Should we just take all papers at face value?
3. You could put the criticism to rest of your knowledge over assault weapons/automatic/semi automatic by just writing out two of three sentences. Why not do it? Does Sen. Diane F. have knowledge of what defines an assault weapon, well we can chalk that up to two different opinions as well. I think this entire #3 issue could be settled if you just answered their question, it isn't meant to be demeaning. I don't think I can define what an assault weapon is. Why not answer in a simple and quick manner? What's the downside?
4. We will see, won't we?
5. He's not an idiot, whether you agree with his opinions or not. However, this comment speaks to a bigger trend, your inability to respond intellectually to someone's criticism of your prior posts. Just because a paper is quoted on a morning talk show(Harvard paper) makes it good? Makes it immune to criticism on an intellectual level? It isn't really simple that 'more guns = more homicides,' how do you reconcile the comments from pod above?
6. You posted a study. People have asked questions about the study and you have not responded. Bringing numbers to a discussion is important, but the discussion about those numbers is just as important. It's time consuming to respond and research, but why not do it?
7. You know his answer.
8. What is?
9. So you once told me to address the older thread to understand your views, and I did. In that thread you had no problems with handguns, so now that is changing? What would you like to do with handguns? What's interesting is your comment 'one step at a time, one limit at a time' So what's your final end game? People laugh when an individual warns of a 'slippery slope,' I do too a lot of time. Just come out and state your position, ban all guns?
One more comment you made in #9, about being the embarrassment of the developed world. I remember hearing that in 2004 when every country except Israel wanted Kerry to win over Bush. I remember hearing some analysts saying see, we should elect Kerry. Really? We are suppose to base our decisions on how foreign nations view us? We aren't going to change our gun laws because other nations sit in disbelief over how available guns are in this country, or their views on the number of gun related deaths in this country.
It's a shame you won't go the extra step in this discussion, it could be really informative for both sides.
