Obama Administration's War Against The Second Amendment...

I have seen enough to KNOW that gun control does not reduce crime. It is perfectly clear to most, except those that despise guns and the Second Amendment.

 

I, as well as several others on this forum, already have. You will never see it.

 

Crime often involves death. Didn't you know?

 

Because you are obvious, predictable, and interminably periphrastic.

No I did not. I didn't have to provide anything when I already knew how you would respond.

Unfortunately for you, and this study, the basic premise and setup of this study is fraught with inconsistencies. Most glaring is the standards by which the 24 states were chosen. What objective criteria was used in their selection? Where did the source document(s) that proved the body of laws for each state come from? What determines "strict" or "lax" for each state? Number of laws, types of laws, enforcement of those laws?

 

Golly, you're trying to defend your failure to provide anything worthwhile by blaming me. That's taking the blame culture way too far! Please put it right. Given your previous accusation, please present a paper that is later than the one I referenced. I look forward to it

Not a good start! The paper uses the upper and lower quartiles in order to avoid standard criticisms over assuming linear relationships.

Why are you asking questions which they clearly answer in their paper? They use 'Gun Control in the United States, A Comparative Survey of State Firearm Laws by the Open Society Institute in New York City (Open Society Institute 2000), which itself uses numerous information sources including the NRA and verification by local law enforcement officers

Again, they describe their methods in full. You can't have read it. It refers to how ranking is according to the following categories: (1) registration of firearms, (2) safety training, (3) regulation of firearm sales, (4) safe storage and accessibility, (5) owner licensing, and (6) litigation and preemption.

 

Not always, and when it does happen, not always a gun. Did you know that?

Also, weapons, mostly guns, have prevented millions of possible deaths/injuries per year in the U.S. Did you know that?

 

Indeed. A kid stealing biscuits may not necessarily use a firearm (although no promises there). The interesting aspect is when guns are used, such as the evidence finding guns are more likely to be use in rapes than in other assaults

No I don't as you're making it up. The evidence shows increases in deaths (and that evidence necessarily takes into account deterrence effects and self-defence)

 

Ayuh,... Too funny...

Just because YOU say it isn't so, it's made up,..??

Whata crock of Poo....

If yer near as smart as ya THINK you are,...
It would seem that you oughta be doin' something other than babbling on an internet forum...

Whata crock of Poo....

 

I say? I'm merely referring to the evidence. Awfully inconvenient for the dogmatic of course

 

Thank you for confirming my point.

 

Come now, friend. This shouldn't be so hard for you. "Facts" are usually quite easy to come by, if they exist, that is. So, seeing how this is a discussion forum that relies on some basic guidelines to function properly, one of which is being able to substantiate ones proclamations, it behooves you to back up your bluster.

Get busy.

 

...and knives are the most utilized weapon in rapes.

Yes, it is true.

 

I already have many times. I will not re-post information for trolls.

 

And what determines those quartiles?

Which was a mistake seeing as the ATF publishes an annual comprehensive report each state's gun laws and regulations. So they chose data that was more than a decade out of date? Yawn again.

I did read it, several times over. Nowhere does it state precisely how each state's laws are evaluated in respect to each of those categories. How does it factor in with states that have similar laws but different methods of enforcement? Nope, like you, that study is long on words and short on substance.

 

The gun control measure (obviously)

Poor attempt again. The paper was published in 2005 and uses 2000 data because of the other data sources used (e.g. 2000 census data). You're not very good at this are you?

However, if you'd like to present a more recent study then be my guest (I'm being flippant there!)

That's a fib. It goes through it in detail.

First, the study makes a big deal about the importance of law enforcement. Second, the data is verified by local law enforcement officers (i.e. its not determined by the authors). Third, if we do have 'noise' in the resulting index that will increase the likelihood of type II error. You're actually attempting to present argument that makes the results look even more dramatic. Well done!

I find that amusing given you haven't managed to offer one genuine critique yet. Have another go! But please try harder

 

Oh, I see. You want to play that way, eh?

Pity.

 

=================================================


The issue was, ""As evidenced by what? I have not seen the administration do anything at all that would indicate they have the slightest interests in gun laws."

But, as U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said, ""Well, as President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons..."

The U.S. Attorney General clearly disagrees with you as to who has the de facto ability to create laws. You laughably believe that your word on who can create the laws trumps that of the U.S. Attorney General. Truly amusing.

 

Certainly. Links have been posted numerous times. The statistics are out there. If you fail to see it, I cannot help you.

 

Ayuh,... It's easier to just ignore what you post, don'tcha know...

 

I'm amazed at the lengths anti-controllers will go to justify their irrational fears.

First, you assume that the Attn Gen is speaking for the President, which is debatable, but more importantly, you have taken his statement to mean that he believes that the Executive Branch can write law. Specifically a new gun ban. If you knew anything about our Constitution and civics you'd know that this is not possible, therefor you SHOULD have known that he was simply saying that he and the President would work with Congress to this end. It is customary for politicians and bureaucrats to state what they would like to do in broad terms. It's laughable that your bias has compelled you to contort this issue into such a fearful and impending doom.

I suppose you are not even aware of the letter signed by 65 Democratic legislators to the Attn Gen stating that they would vote against a new ban, effectively taking this issue off the table.

 

Pity you would turn to deception and name-calling. Look you have admitted that there is no direct link or fact that shows the President or Holder had any direct involvement in any crime or cover-up of any crime. You have repeatedly stated that one needs to put together the widely disparate circumstances to arrive at your conclusion.

Unfortunately for you, you've now gone so far to say that your conclusion is based on "facts". Facts you cannot and have not provided. It's one thing to say that you have connected some dots, or read between the lines to arrive at a position. It's another thing entirely to say you have facts that support your position, and this is what you have now done.

This really shouldn't need to be explained to you as you should know this.

 

Still trolling?

 

Your parents obviously misspent that money they shelled out for the reading comprehension courses and the civics classes.

*) Holder's words are in direct quotes -- you do understand what that means when a news outlet uses them? And what are Holder's exact words, per CBS News? As follows: "...as President Obama indicated during the campaign..." -- letting us know that he is indeed revealing Obama's intentions. There is no assumption going on there. Furthermore, the post which I quoted directly in my post is as follows: "I have not seen the administration do anything at all that would indicate they have the slightest interests in gun laws." -- the author isn't just claiming that Obama is a harmless t**rd in this matter; the author brings into play everyone in the administration. Unfortunately for anti-gunners, Holder let the cat out of the bag early on this admin. As I said, Obama is more skilled at subterfuge; that may be the only reason he's the President and they aren't...

*) Not only is Holder snickering at your naivete, everyone inside the Beltway is starting to laugh. The President and his admin do indeed write laws: why do you think it's called Obamacare? Does Reaganomics ring a bell? Bush-43's tax cuts? Clinton's legislative agenda? You think those legislative packages were put together by Senators and Representatives? All of Washington, DC may be ROTFLTAO at you! Your homework assignment is to figure out how the President and his admin create and get these entire packages of laws onto the floor of the two chambers and how he gets what is so commonly referred to as 'the President's legislation' that it occasionally even bears his name, through Congress.

*) Sixty-five Democratic legislators are *not* the Obama administration. They also aren't a majority on Capitol Hill -- but even if they were, *their actions* would *not* give a clue as to the Obama admin's anti-gun objectives, legislative or otherwise.

...back to class for you, little buddy...

 

Nope,... Just stating the Facts as seen by everybody, But yerself...

 

...and still, the Obama Administration is anti-gun. You justify all of this by saying that many legislators are against a gun ban, etc. Thankfully, there will be a huge opposition to the Obama Administration on the gun issue.