The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

There was another school shooting (http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/10/justice/oregon-high-school-shooting/) near Portland, OR today.  It is the 74th school shooting (http://everytown.org/article/schoolshootings/) since the mass murder in Newtown, CT less than two years ago:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BpyII7nCMAAqkjz.jpg:large)
(red = K-12)

An analysis (http://3gbwir1ummda16xrhf4do9d21bsx.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/SchoolShootingsReport1.pdf) of these shootings (back in February, so not quite up-to-date) provided the following facts (emphasis in original):

In the fourteen months since the mass shooting in Newtown, CT, there have been at least 44 school shootings including fatal and nonfatal assaults, suicides, and unintentional shootings — an average of more than three a month.  In the first six weeks of 2014 alone, there were 13 school shootings including one eight-day period in which there were four shootings in K-12 schools.
These school shootings resulted in 28 deaths and 37 non-fatal gunshot injuries.  In 49 percent of these incidents at least one person died.
Of the K-12 school shootings in which the shooter’s age was known, 70 percent (20 of 28 incidents) were perpetrated by minors.  Among those shootings where it was possible to determine the source of the firearm, three-quarters of the shooters obtained their guns from home.
In 16 cases — more than a third of all incidents — at least one person was shot after a schoolyard argument or confrontation escalated and a gun was at hand.
The shooters ranged from 5 to 53 years of age.

The grip the gun lobby has on this country is unbelievable.  It literally does not matter how many shootings occur; we will continue to hear the same tired platitudes about freedom and liberty, mostly from the same crowd who insist that we imprison people for decades because they are getting high.

Why are we not trying to outlaw alcohol or drugs? People use them and kill people. I mean ... knives kill many people each year as well. It seems a bit prejudice to only pick on guns.

Again ... we need better ways to deal with people with mental health issues. Until that is addressed people will use whatever tools to kill people just as the California kid did. Once people decide to take themselves out they will find a way to bring others with them.

I really hate this argument because it goes to the extreme so easily. As a middle of the road person who owns guns I find the arguing points generally rush right past me to the point I say both sides are being stupid.

People eat spaghetti before killing people, so we should immediately pass an anti-pasta law. I also heard of a guy who went out and shot a bunch of people one Tuesday night after his wife gave him oral sex. This proves that we need anti-blowjob legislation, but only on Tuesday nights.

[/end sarcasm]

As far as the knives vs guns argument goes, all I can say is that you have to be a reeeeeeally good aim with a knife if you throw it at someone from a clock tower.


...and the easier it is to take others with them, the more likely that is to happen. It's pretty damned hard to be a mass murderer with a knife, and most of the kids who lose it and decide to off themselves aren't smart enough to construct an explosive device.

We did try outlawing alcohol outright and the solution was worse than the problem.  I would argue the same is the case for narcotics, but the War on Drugs continues (mostly) unabated.

So far, our most effective solution has been the one we used on tobacco: heavy regulation and extreme taxation.  Neither of these things are incompatible with the Second Amendment, mind you.

Knives (and bats, and cars) have utility purposes outside the realm of inflicting injury.

...as long as it doesn't cost any money, right?  Because it seems like the pro-gun crowd overlaps almost entirely with the cut-government-spending crowd.

I thought this argument was adequately addressed with the mass stabbing in China on the same day as the Sandy Hook shooting; the one that resulted in zero fatalities.

If a guy runs into a school with a bottle of Jack Daniels, how many people do you think he will murder before being "taken down?"

Actually, CF, I am on the same side of the discussion as you, believe it or not.  But your points in this post are not the right ones to defend your stance on gun control.

Brian ... Alcohol meaning drunk drivers. Drunk drivers kill more people than school shootings.

I agree with you Spider about we've tried that before and the solution was worse than the problem. That is the point I'm trying to make. We don't need to be focused on the law abiding citizens but focus on the sick people who get to them ...  just as we do alcohol and the ones abusing prescription drugs.

Elliot Rodger stabbed three people, hit four people with his car and shot five people yet the only thing people focus on is the gun. Why is that?

I think most people would agree with some sort of "gun control"but outlawing them will never be the answer because bad people will still get them and it will be another thing for thugs to get rich for supplying them.

We have never outlawed guns in this country (in the same sense and to the extent that we have outlawed alcohol and narcotics) so the "we tried that already" point is inapplicable.

Yet in the case of non-prescription drugs, we are happy to simply criminalize them and start locking people up.

In any case, the solution I propose is not a Prohibition-style total ban.  I'm more in favor of huge taxes and strict regulations.  It makes no sense to me that a license to operate a motor vehicle has far more onerous requirements than operating a lethal weapon whose only purpose is to inflict bodily harm.

Because of the other 73 school shootings in the last 2 years.

How many other incidents have there been of vehicular mass murders at schools in the same time frame?  How about mass stabbing fatalities?

What kind of "gun control" do you support?  Please be specific.

Yeah, lets restrict the rights of 300 million people because 75 criminals broke the law in the past 2 years. Maybe next you can go after the 1st amendment for people who you disagree with. Oh, that's right, the democrats are already trying to do that. That's the problem, Democrats think that rights are privileges, when in fact they are totally different.

I gather that you are saying you oppose unconstitutional attempts to restrict the rights of Americans to purchase high explosives.

Wait, let me guess: you're in favor of totally reasonable and constitutional restrictions on what kinds of weapons (bazookas? land mines? mustard gas?) private citizens are allowed to possess, while the restrictions I would prefer are clearly unconstitutional and a grave violation of American liberty.

Your reply is moot. The 2nd amendment of the constitution grants citizens the individual right to keep and bear arms. The supreme court has already recently upheld this and concealed carry is now legal in 50 states. I'm sure you will agree that the supreme court ultimately decides what is constitutional and what is not constitutional. And again you fail to distinguish between rights and privileges. Here ya go, I'll help you understand. Straight from Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_%28legal_ethics%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_%28legal_ethics%29)




What you are proposing isn't going to happen in my lifetime, therefore I could care less. If you have a problem with it talk to all the democrats that voted against gun control last time around. Then you can go argue with you the supreme court. In the end your position will lose

The Second Amendment says nothing about taxing firearms, and the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the ability of the government to use taxing power.  Furthermore, the Constitution says nothing about whether open/concealed carry must be allowed, or about restrictions on where firearms may be carried.  Lastly, while the Second Amendment does make provisions for protecting the right of some people to bear arms, it does not at all restrict the ability of the government to regulate, say, sales of firearms.

So even though you completely ignored the issue of what weapons are permissible, it honestly doesn't even have to come to that.  My preferred solution would be very similar to the solution used with tobacco: onerous taxes, and heavy restrictions on sales/public usage.  Both of these things have a rock-solid historical precedent of constitutionality.

And while we are on the subject of privileges vs. rights:

Since you put it that way (with triple emphasis!), firearm ownership is unquestionably a privilege in the United States.

Under 18 U.S.C. 922(g), any person convicted of a federal felony may not own a firearm.  Sounds pretty revocable to me, which means (according to you) it must not be a right.

I'd be fine with a law that says that if a minor commits a crime and shoots someone with your firearm, you are legally responsible as well. Call it depraved indifference or gross negligence.

I'll go one step further and say that if someone commits a crime with your firearm, you should be held responsible for that crime.

Maybe then people will get serious about securing their guns from their children.

Nice hypothetical talking points, however like I said. Go argue with the members of your party that voted it down. Then go argue with the supreme court. Also you're wrong on the concealed carry point, the supreme court ruled that prohibiting carrying a firearm is unconstitutional. That's why all 50 states now allow carry of some kind.

From the decision:


Like I said, it's never gonna happen in my lifetime. Even if it does, there are 300 million firearms out there that have  already been sold that can't be taxed again and I'm stocked to the ceiling on guns and ammo. So, I could care less

Just would like to interject one thing ... It's not necessarily Democrats who oppose gun ownership. Many Democrats are for gun rights  including many of the Hollywood liberal elite. Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Bruce Willis, James Earl Jones, Ice T, Johnny Depp. Heck ... Even the Dalai Lama said ""If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/dalailama.asp#YFijeb4cxmuOx9xZ.99

Is that what he meant when he said Gunga Galunga?

Do gun control laws vary from state to state or are they federally regulated?

I'm fairly certain that they vary considerably per state.

interesting.  Then there must be studies that compare gun control laws to violence.  I'll have to find one

Detroit has some of the most restrictive and toughest laws in the country and yet they are one of the highest for murder rates.

That is an incorrect assessment of the facts; 17 states do not ban open carry, but also do not prohibit local laws from restricting the practice.  Furthermore, in IL, you can only open carry on private property, which is exactly the kind of tobacco-style legislation that I'm talking about.

I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of mandatory registration (i.e. a tax), so yes, they can be taxed again.

As for whether or not it will happen, that depends on several other factors.  If I were you, I would be concerned that the party that most stalwartly defends gun rights is currently on a demographic path to be mathematically irrelevant in 20 years.  The real question, in my mind, is whether it can be done, and even I can think of several ways to severely curtail firearms in a manner consistent with established constitutional law.

I agree with you that there are some democrats who don't oppose firearms. However, for the most part, it's the democrats that push the gun control agenda. The democrats that don't push that agenda are a small minority.

Yes, up to now, the places with the highest shootings usually have the most restrictive gun laws and are usually democrat stronghold cities. States that had restrictive “may issue” or “no issue” concealed carry laws between 1980-2009 had a 10% higher gun murder rate than those states that required no permit at all, or who had “shall issue” permitting. That's a fact.

Criminals have nothing to fear if they know that the victim isn't armed and can't fight back. That's why the crime rates are through the roof in those places.

It will be impossible to stop all violence, that is a given.  But can you realistically walk into a school and kill 20 children with a knife?  with a bat?  with a single shot muzzle loader?  No.  You might get one or two or if you are very effective 3 or 4, before you will be overtaken by the adults at the school. 

On the other hand with a semi-automatic with a 50 round magazine you could be completely incompetent and still kill 25-30 people. 

This argument is saying, we will never completely get rid of murder so lets not try and reduce the number.  That is just stupid.

We will never get rid of teen age pregnancy, yet we should take steps to reduce it. 
We will never get rid of obesity, yet we should take steps to  reduce it. 
We will never get rid of rape on college camps, yet we should take steps to  reduce it. 
We will never get rid of drunk driving, yet we should take steps to  reduce it. 
We will never get rid of soldiers dying from friendly fire, yet we should take steps to  reduce it.   
We will never get rid of cancer, yet we should take steps to  reduce it. 

So the question should never be will this specific gun control legislation complete get rid of gun violence, just will it reduce it. 

The logical next question I suppose is, in the states with lax gun control laws, have there been news stories and about a private citizen stopping a gunman by shooting them.

This is often cited by the anti gun control crowd, however, the cause and effect is backward.  Places with high gun violence are more likely to pass restrictive gun control laws than places w/o. 

You'd think that, once gun control laws went into place, the number would decline sharply.  But, has it?

Fact is: people who shoot other people with guns don't care about laws (clearly), so how do you expect to control them with more laws?

To me it seems that even if you made guns illegal, people would still find ways to get them

People who want to hijack an airplane don't care about laws either, so it isn't enough to just make hijacking illegal.  We make carrying a gun, knife or bomb on to an airplane illegal too.

Making guns illegal is not the answer.  But a good steps to reduce gun violence would include: closing to loophole on gun show gun purchases, making it illegal to own, sell or use high capacity magazine, do a better job with background checks, require gun owners to secure their guns safely so kids don't accidentally shoot themselves, etc.   

So if we are going to discuss gun laws and their effect on violent crime, should we also compare America to, say, Japan?

The problem with saying "Detroit has tough gun laws but there is still lots of gun crime there" is that anyone in Detroit who wants a gun just drives to a nearby town and buys their gun legally and openly there, then drives back into Detroit without any scrutiny.  This doesn't happen when firearms are restricted nationally, any more than you can drive into Mexico and buy a rocket launcher then casually drive back across the border.

It doesn't work as well piecemeal, for the same reasons a dry county can't keep all alcohol out.

People who drive drunk clearly don't care about anti-drinking laws, so how do you expect to control them with more laws?

This logic can be used against any problem that you don't want to do anything about.

To expend on what Spider said.

What has been more effective at curbing DUI than stricter punishments for DUI (although that does have an effect) is laws that increase the liability on people who serve people alcohol. 

For example if a city increases the penalty on teenagers who are caught in possession of a beer from a $25 fine to a $500 fine is unlikely to curb underage drinking.  On the other hand increasing the fine on bars or stores that sell to minor from $25 to $500 has a great effect.   

I feel like this is a poor analogy.  If you want to use drunk driving as comparison, your argument should be in favor of outlawing cars.

Plenty of people have guns and don't murder children.  Its the irresponsible few that use them improperly that you're trying to control.  Outlawing the tool isn't the best way to go about controlling the result.


I agree with this.  So, who should be responsible, the gun owner or the store that sold the gun?  Both?

Just to clarify since I have experience in traveling through dry counties. Most do not have laws to keep alcohol out. They just restrict the sale in the county but do nothing about consumption/possession.

Cars are an invaluable tool that have transformative value in non-destructive ways, and are critical to the modern economy.  Do you seriously believe that a ban on guns is more appropriately compared to a ban on cars than a ban on alcohol?

Again, plenty of people can drive while intoxicated and not crash, yet we institute blanket BAC caps anyway because of the irresponsible few.

^^ Fine, I agree.  So tell me what the gun-equivalent is of a BAC cap.  I'd be in favor of that.  Outlawing guns is not the equivalent.

Car + Alcohol + Irresponsibility = DUI

Gun + Instability + Irresponsibility = Murder

Car + Alcohol + Irresponsibility = running over a crossing guard at an elementary school

would the bar that served that person get sued and lose ? .. yes

Nobody is talking about "outlawing guns."  I've already said multiple times that I favor a tobacco-style approach to the problem: onerous taxes and heavy regulation.

Granted, I do not know anyone who has had a DUI that involved a death but no DUI I know of has ever led back to any ramifications for the bar(s) involved. I do have familiarity and know someone who had a DUI that involved two people being hospitalized with the name of the bar publicized with no legal ramifications.

No, you have an incorrect assessment. Who said anything about open carry? Open carry or concealed carry it doesn't matter. The fact is that all 50 states allow carrying of a firearm one way or another.

Quote from: Wikipedia
A No-Issue jurisdiction is one that – with very limited exceptions – does not allow any private citizen to carry a concealed handgun in public. The term refers to the fact that no concealed carry permits will be issued (or recognized). Since July 2013, with the legalization of concealed carry in Illinois, there are no patently no-issue states.

So yes, it is legal to carry a firearm in all 50 states.

That depends on if you think that Rights should be taxed and registered.  And according to the 2nd amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Common sense dictates that taxing and registration could be considered an infringement on a right.
 
Needless to say, they already tried it in New York with an assault weapon registration(what the hell is an assault weapon anyhow?) and it's a total failure. 99% haven't registered and state law enforcement officers have publicly stated their opposition to the law and their refusal to enforce it. http://www.truthandaction.org/gun-control-fail-99-registered-new-yorks-assault-weapon-registration-deadline-nears/

No, I'm not concerned at all. I'm smart enough to realize that there is an ebb and flow to the parties that are elected to run the country. Republicans and Democrats each get their turn to ruin this country every few years because the majority of the voting public is too stupid to figure out what they want. Right now, since your precious democrats have control, you can say that the republicans will cease to exist and be irrelevant in 20 years. However, realistically I know that is the farthest thing from the truth. Both parties have to exist with somewhat equal power in order for this whole ponzi scheme to keep on working. If one of the two parties ever becomes "mathematically irrelevant" as you say, we all better be concerned because the end is near, it's crash and burn time.

[mod edit: accidentally modified pondwater's post when trying to quote; restored]

No state has a complete ban on carrying, if that's what you're trying to say.  But in several states where carrying is allowed, local jurisdictions are still permitted to enact and enforce open carry bans.

Concealed carry almost always requires a permit, which is something that is generally applied to privileges, is it not?

So have you decided whether bearing arms is a right or a privilege?  You previously said that rights are irrevocable, but anyone who has committed a federal felony (or has renounced their citizenship, or has a restraining order on them, or has been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor, among other things) is prohibited from owning a firearm by federal law.

Is voting a right?  Because every state requires voters to register.

I think the Whig party disagrees.

In any case, I expect the GOP to course correct by 2020 at the latest.  You can only lose so many Presidential elections in a row before you figure out that the problem is you (see: Eisenhower, Clinton).

That is a gross misstatement and patently wrong. I know many gun owners, including myself, who would like to see the mental heath system in this country fixed, to prevent those who pose a danger to themselves and others, from legally obtaining a firearm. As it sits now, there is no way for approving authorities to find out that someone is in treatment and a possible danger, so they can deny a purchase of a firearm.
Adding even more gun laws will not prevent a mentally ill person from purchasing a firearm, especially if no one is told they are a danger. We need to close the loophole that prevents the information from getting to those who need to know.

I read the alleged "list" of "school shootings."

The first one on the list from MAIG is:


So, the Bloomberg Cabal is considering any shooting near a school as a "school shooting."

This is pure leftist propaganda meant to instill fear in everyone.

Never mind that many of the "near schools" shootings are caused by gang bangers, robbers or disgruntled employees or a spouse. The goal is to make you think they ALL are happening INSIDE SCHOOLS. Other shootings on the list occurred after school hours.

I am not trying to minimize the horror of innocent children being shot by other children, but the leftists in concert with the MSM are brainwashing the public.

“Michael R. Bloomberg, making his first major political investment since leaving office, plans to spend $50 million this year building a nationwide grass-roots network to motivate voters who feel strongly about curbing gun violence,”...
funded the Everytown organization.

...so you are objecting to the classification of a shooting in a school's parking lot, during school hours, as a "school shooting"?  Next, will you insist that a shooting on a school playground is really just kind of near a school, and should really be considered more of a park shooting?

Whatever it takes to deflect and distract, I suppose.  Drug dealers!  Gangs!  Maybe we should just outlaw being a disgruntled loner.

Likewise, are  you going to tell me that a crackhead that robs and shoots a pedestrian on a sidewalk next to a school is the same as a mentaly ill person getting 12 guns and blasting 10 people inside the confines of  a school. Talk about cherry picking and distracting, haha

^^ Gotta be honest he has a point.  Shootings happen all the time.  Just because one happens to be near a school doesn't mean it is any more or less heinous than one that happens, say, outside a grocery store.

I think, clearly, a "school shooting" is one in which a psychopath rolls up into a school and starts picking off random kids and teachers.  Not when a drug dealer kills a junkie who didn't pay for his crack yesterday down the block from a school.

If the gun store sold a gun to someone whose has undergone a proper background check than the store shouldn't be responsible.   Hence, why we should close the gun show loophole and do a better job with background checks.   

But this is not a one or the other proposition....shouldn't we do both?  To be able to purchase a firearm shouldn't you have to register and go through a process of taking a gun safety class and psychological evaluation. If there was a program set up for a free mental health screening as part of a process for getting a gun, I think that would be a program worth having. I believe everyone has the right to have a gun if they want one, but the difference is the NRA and the far right believe that ANY PROGRAMS like that (even registration) is an affront to Freedom and liberty. This is the problem is that even reasonable gun control measures is met with hard line opposition. And they like to say that the mental health system is to blame, not guns, but it is really both. You could possibly have a program like the TSA(not that they are the best Gov't organization) has pre-approved travelers that don't have to go through the same screening process to purchase additional firearms.

We SHOULD repeal the 2nd amendment, and treat firearm ownership as a privilege similar to driving.
We SHOULD mandate Smart Gun technology across the nation. It doesn't impact 2nd amendment rights either way.
We SHOULD hold gun owners directly accountable for actions people take (legal and illegal) with guns they've purchased.

Those are things we SHOULD do as a society.

Worst name ever since it is so misleading. Gun dealers still are required to run the background checks at gun shows. Private sales are not required to do background checks but it is illegal to sell to someone if you know they cannot have a gun (I declined selling a gun which I didn't really want to sell anyway because I knew the person could not legally have it). Requiring background checks on private sales is a slippery slope. How does a private citizen access the information? Is there a fee? Who pays the fee? What if it is someone you know very closely (relative)?

I say reverse that.  To make it illegal to sell a gun unless you know that the person is legally permitted to own the gun.

Let say you want to sell your gun to your next door neighbor.  You don't that he is a felon, but you don't know he isn't either.  You can't sell him a gun unless he presents proof in the form of having undergone a background check and presenting proof.  If you sell it to him without proof then you have automatically committed the felony of illegal gun transfer, and if the the gun is subsequently used in a crime the additional crime of aiding and abetting. 

As for who pays for the background check that is up to the buyer and seller to decided.  You can say, "I am not even going to discuss selling you the gun without the background check"  or you can say, "gun cost $300 but that includes the cost of the background check"  entirely up to you. 

^^^I could be wrong but I think this is what Phish was referring to when he said "argument goes to the extreme". Not gonna happen. Waste of time and beyond the scope of this discussion.

Again, waste of time. Any technology can be reverse engineered and rendered useless. Not to mention that there are 300 million+ firearms in this country already.

We already do that, it's called the criminal justice system.

No, those are things that YOU think we should do as a society. Most rational people wouldn't agree with you.

What's the difference to you?

I mean, if your solution to both is "more guns!" then why even bother complaining about how the shootings are categorized?  It could be a mass shooting of nuns holding orphaned infant children of war veterans and your position would be exactly the same.

So why are you complaining about whether we categorize them as school shootings when it literally makes no difference to you?  It's like we're sitting here arguing whether the Virginia Tech massacre was one incident or multiple incidents when you don't actually care either way.

You're correct. A shooting is a shooting. However they have been misrepresented as SCHOOL SHOOTINGS by the left, the article of reference, and even you in this thread. And it matters because the left is distorting facts to make things seem worse than they actually are, pushing fake propaganda through the left leaning mainstream media. Why all the "school shooting" talk and twisted facts?  It really doesn't even matter if your "74" number was actually "105", because gun homicide rate is down almost 50% since 1993.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/ (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/)

The liberals lying and twisting facts to fit their agenda and the public's widespread ignorance and acceptance of the leftist mainstream media propaganda is the problem, not firearms. Hell, Negros shooting negros in the streets of Detroit, Chicago, DC, and other liberal cities are much bigger problems and kill far more people in this country than school shootings. The wide open borders are a bigger problem than your fake exagerated misrepresented "74 school shootings" media scare tactic.

Such a claim would require you to acknowledge that school shootings actually are worse.  Are they?

I still find it funny that you cry foul when this is referred to as a school shooting.  It wasn't "down the block" or "across the street" from the school; it was on the school grounds.  Kids were in class and in direct danger of being hit by stray shots.

Homicide as a whole has gone down greatly.

(http://thepublicintellectual.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Homicides-1900-2010-2.jpg)

But since you specifically mention gun homicide, let's take a look at this graph for homicide victims among those aged 10-24, from the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6227a1.htm):

(http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/m6227a1f1.gif)

So regarding this age group, it would indeed be accurate to say that gun homicides have decreased greatly: they used to be over four times higher than all other homicides combined, but now they are only a bit more than three times higher.  Progress!

Many states have such requirements already. It is not as easy to buy a gun as people make it out to be. What has never been addressed yet is fixing our mental health system. No one on either side is pushing to fix the mental health system in this country. After every shooting, the anti-gun crowd crows for more gun laws, and they ignore the fact the majority of the shooters all share a component of mental illness. How about we try and go after the one thing we have not addressed yet? We have thousands of gun laws...let's try and address the mental heath component of these shootings for a change.
The reason there is so much push back, is because so many laws have been passed, and gun free zones have been created, and still the mentally ill shooters legally acquire firearms and kill people. This is because doctors and counselors do not inform the authorities about people who are possibly dangerous, thus prevent ing them from purchasing firearms. The children who got their firearms from their family members, means those adults screwed up. They should have better secured, or removed the firearms from the home.

Since you forgot the key part of the text, I grabbed it for you. "When homicide rates were examined by age group, rates for persons aged 20-24 years remained highest, and rates for persons aged 10-14 years remained lowest."

This means among school children, the threat of gun homicide is not a real threat. Age 20-24 is the highest risk. But that does not fit the school shooting narrative.

He knows what he's doing, he's changing the subject like usual. I pointed out that the original "school shootings" analysis and this thread was skewed by the democrats in an attempt to fear monger and stir people up. Then spider asked, "So why are you complaining about whether we categorize them as school shootings?" Then I provide a link that points out that gun homicide as a whole(no catagory) is down 49% since 1993. Then spider changes the subject again and starts talking about age ranges and categories.

Because everyone implicitly realizes that a comprehensive government system of mental health evaluation would be decried as a FAR more invasive violation of liberty than any gun control bill on the table.

Gun rights advocates seem to categorize every mass shooter as "mentally disturbed" (which is a not-unreasonable assessment).  Fine.  So do we start taking guns away from people who start talking about our unconstitutional, tyrannical government?  Who gets to determine who is mentally healthy enough to own a gun, and how do we go about keeping a verified, updated database on the mental health status on the owners of the 300 million guns in America (WITHOUT a gun registration system, mind you)?

It's a smokescreen, intended purely to get people off the topic of gun control long enough for whatever recent event to fall off the news page.

Well, first off, that quote means that among ages 10-24, ages 10-14 are the lowest.  If the point you take away from that fact is that school shootings are not the leading cause of homicide in the age group (10-24) that leads the nation in homicide victims, I certainly concede that point.  If they were, I'd be talking about the 740th school shooting since Sandy Hook, not the 74th.

But more to the point: talking about the problem of school shooting does not necessarily require that school shootings are a leading cause of deaths.  We can also talk about Islamic terrorism and drunk driving while acknowledging that neither of those are leading causes of fatalities in the U.S., can we not?  So how is "school shootings don't really kill that many kids compared to the total number of dead young adults" a relevant response?

Well the problem is that people buy guns in States with lax gun laws, and bring them into states/cities that have tough gun restrictions.  What's needed is tougher National guidelines, but that infringes upon States' rights.

Harvard gun study seems to disagree with this notion, http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/08/30/harvard-gun-study-no-decrease-in-violence-with-ban/ (http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/08/30/harvard-gun-study-no-decrease-in-violence-with-ban/). Also, since national firearm violence has been cut in half in the last 20 years without tough national gun laws in place and that it's mostly the liberal stronghold cities with tough gun laws usually lead the list in firearm violence, common sense would dictate that strict gun laws are ineffective in their intended purpose. Anyhow, I'll trust a Harvard study over liberals with an agenda, even though Harvard is Liberal. I guess they didn't get the memo, or maybe some liberals actually have some integrity, go figure.

This is a logical fallacy.  Please stop using it.  This is clearly correlative, not causative.

I don't think he is saying it is a cause as much as the practice has not been effective in reducing violence (which was excluded from your copying of his quote). That is something that needs to be part of this conversation since the conversation itself is how some think stricter laws will reduce gun violence.

The 1994 Assault Weapons ban (which was passed, um, 20 years ago) was a national gun law.  Maybe you're just saying it wasn't tough enough for your tastes?

Anyway, this bogus, non-peer-reviewed "Harvard study" has already been thoroughly debunked.  You'll forgive me if I quote myself from another forum:


Given your apparently newfound trust in the reliability of studies from Harvard (and the fact that the studies I cited are actually, you know, studies from Harvard, instead of unreviewed opinion pieces), I look forward to your prompt reversal of opinion on this issue.

You only call it logical fallacy because you disagree with it and no I won't stop using it because it's common sense. And Phish is half correct. The main point is that if the strict gun laws in the liberal stronghold cities were effective, then firearm violence in those places wouldn't be so high. The second half of the equation is causative. Just because you have strict gun laws doesn't mean that the criminals won't have guns. The people who won't have the guns is the general law abiding citizens. In that situation, the criminals have nothing to fear and no one to stop them. Therefore, gun violence will rise. The same reason most of the mass shootings happen in gun free zones. Lots of guns at gun shows and police stations. Why no mass shootings? Because soft targets are easy and no one is shooting back.

Are you saying that the now expired Assault Weapon ban was responsible for a 50% reduction in firearm violence?

And who did this debunking?

If gun bans don't work, why aren't we seeing more crimes committed with Tommy guns, M-16s, and other machine guns that are banned via the 1934 National Firearms Act?

Is it a coincidence that the overwhelming majority of gun crime is committed with guns that are legal to buy and sell in (at least some) American jurisdictions?

You claimed that crime dropped over the last 20 years without a tough national gun law in place.  In point of fact, a national gun law was enacted 20 years ago.

Every single blue word in my previous post is a link.  One of those links is a subsequent paper from one of the authors of your cited "study," in which he corrects his data from the 10x inflated value in said study.

AR-15, M-16, M-4, are the same platforms. The primary difference between civilian and military models is the burst setting.
The use of "assault" rifles in crimes has never risen much above the 1-2% thresh hold. The majority of gun violence is committed with pistols and shotguns...neither of which are affected by these two laws.
If you read Freakonomics, they present a logic case that Roe v Wade had more to do with the decrease in crime in the mid 90's, than any piece of legislation.

So why don't we see fully automatic machine guns frequently used in the commission of crimes, as we did before the 1934 law outlawing them was passed?

If it's still easy to get guns after they've been outlawed, why are nearly all of these mass shootings being committed with weapons that are available legally?  Why aren't they being committed with more deadly military-grade weaponry that is not available to the public?

Nope.  I haven't even weighed in on this thread.  But it's absolutely a logical fallacy and it hurts the overall discussion, which I've been enjoying reading.


People who use lawnmowers most tend to have longer grass.  Therefore, lawnmowers cause longer grass.  That's a causation fallacy.

A simple yes or no would answer the question. You don't have to deflect by restating what I said. I know what I said and didn't say. Now, are you implying that the now expired Assault Weapon ban is the reason for a 50% reduction in firearm violence over the past 20 years? Is that your position, yes or no?

I think legalization of abortion in the 70s is a factor in the general decrease in crime over the past 20 years

You made the claim that "national firearm violence has been cut in half in the last 20 years without tough national gun laws in place."  I pointed out that said claim is false.  If you're asking me whether the Assault Weapons ban contributed to a reduction in firearm crime, my answer is yes.

But since we're insisting that people answer questions: if gun bans don't work, why aren't more crimes being committed with military-grade machine guns that are illegal for the public to own?

The claim is not false. Crimes with Assault weapons account for 1-2% of firearm crimes. How is that a tough national law if it's only affecting 1-2% of crime by firearms? Also, what accounted for the other 48-49% drop in firearms crime? It wasn't the Assault Weapons ban.

i answered that .. it was abortion

Abortion? Are you high? I don't even know WTF you're talking about, I don't get it ???. What are you trying to say? Since there's less people due to abortion, there is less crime. Talk about a causation fallacy, lol. If that's the case, cancer and fatal car accidents have led to the decrease in crime also.

So now the assault weapons ban was not a "tough" law?  You seemed to believe otherwise when you were claiming (http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?topic=21913.msg293914;topicseen#msg293914) that plenty of Democrats were voted out because of it.

So which one is it?  Was the 1994 assault weapons ban a unconscionable attack on liberty that crippled our Second Amendment rights, or was it a meaningless PR law that had no real impact?  Please make up your mind.

And while you're at it:  if gun bans don't work, why aren't more crimes being committed with military-grade machine guns that are illegal for the public to own?

Let me connect the dots for you: the women who choose to have abortions are most frequently those who recognize that they are incapable of taking care of children (financially, emotionally, or both).  These children would otherwise grow up in poverty and/or neglect, and would consequently be in the highest risk pool of committing crime.

Inform yourself: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf

There's a good book I read called Freakonomics that illustrated this pretty well.  It's not simply that there are fewer people, but specifically there are fewer people in social/economic situations that are most likely to grow up to be criminals.  Statistically speaking, abortions are had at higher percentages in poor communities or to people who aren't capable of raising well-adjusted, educated kids.  So, you see drops in crime about 15 years after abortion laws loosen.  This is shown in multiple parts of the world.  The same is true in reverse, where abortion laws become stricter -- booms in crime happen about 15 years later.

The cool thing about the book is that it doesn't make a judgement call on abortion.  It doesn't talk about right or wrong.  It just says THIS happens and THIS is the result.  They do this with many, many topics.  It's a really interesting explanation of how economic systems are used in non-traditional areas.

Actually, it was both. The assault weapon ban was an infringement on the second amendment. However, I have read many reports and studies that have found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murder. I actually think some of the studies were from the FBI and Dept. of Justice.

BTW, can you explain to me the criteria, characteristics, or definition of an assault weapon as it relates to the assault weapon ban?

Military-grade? As Bsmooth pointed out, the AR-15, M-16, M-4, are the same platforms, they are the same weapons with exception of the rate of fire. Meaning that the full auto Colt M16/M4 is the same as the semi auto Colt AR15 that I can buy at Walmart with exception of a few internal parts.

Furthermore, fully auto, or as you say "military grade" weapons are in not illegal to own. The tax stamp will cost you $200, and you must wait 90 days before being able to receive the firearm. With those two criteria, as long as you have a clean background, you do not need any special license, just the stamp. I would assume that more crimes are not committed with full auto(military grade, LOL, so fucking funny) weapons because - semi auto is more to accurate, easier to keep on target, and $200 cheaper. I've fired both and full auto is not good for accuracy, especially when your adrenaline is pumping.

So which one is it?  Was it the 1994 assault weapons ban the reason of the 50% decline in firearm violence even when there are numerous studies that show virtually no impact on crime rates. Or was it abortion rates, which at best is a hypothesis, as there is no real way to measure it.

I love how you and the democrats use these made up scary media frenzy terms like "assault weapons" and "military grade". It really shows you lack of knowledge about firearms.

Was it an insignificant, meaningless infringement with no real impact?  Or was it a drastic curtailment of key constitutional rights?  Pick one.

Would you like me to post a link to the (expired) law for you so you can read the definition yourself, or would you prefer I paste the text of the law into this thread?  I'm not sure what the point of this question is.

So, not the same, then.

Don't the versions of these weapons used by the military have selectable rate of fire?  If so, why are criminals using inferior legal versions when the illegal military-grade versions are the-same-but-better (i.e. the same options, plus one more)?  Could it be because illegal weapons are harder to get?

I am also forced to wonder why criminals everywhere choose not to use illegal silencers.  Could it be because the ban on silencers works?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act#Categories_of_firearms_regulated

All NFA items must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Private owners wishing to purchase an NFA item must obtain approval from the ATF, obtain a signature from the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) who is the county sheriff or city or town chief of police (not necessarily permission), pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and fingerprints, fully register the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a tax.

In other words, unless you can convince your local chief of police to sign off on it, you may not own a machine gun as a private citizen.  Even in the two states (TN and AK) where laws have been passed requiring CLEOs to sign off on these kinds of requests, you effectively still need their permission; one TN Sheriff added a signing statement stating that he could not verify that the weapon would not be used for unlawful purposes, the ATF denied the application, and the county authorities ruled that the signing statement complied with the letter of the TN law.

If full-auto is inferior and useless, why are these weapons even produced, and why do militaries use them?  Isn't the point of a military to use the most effective weapons possible?

And if you are saying that $200 is enough to deter a criminal from using a fully-automatic weapon, how can it be that making guns more expensive (by, say, greatly increasing regulation on them) will not deter gun crime?

I suppose we should stick to more technically accurate terms, like "it's exactly the same except for the rate of fire" and "there's no difference except for a few internal parts."

Maybe next you can tell me how two guns are exactly the same except for their effective range, or maybe how there's no difference between gun A and gun B other than the kind of ammunition they use?

It was a meaningless infringement of a key constitutional right that had no real impact.
I would like you to tell me what characteristics makes an "assault weapon" and "assault weapon"

Yes pretty much the same.

Who said that civilian semi auto firearms are inferior? Fully auto and semi auto both have their own purpose. If you think that fully auto is better for killing lots of people as quickly as possible, you're wrong. Your ignorance about firearms is astounding.

The correct term you are looking for is a suppressor. Anyhow, just so you know, there is no ban on suppressors(silencers as you say) and they are not illegal. They are subject to the same provisions as fully automatic weapons. And actually, suppressors can be illegally made rather easily at home. So no it's not that hard to get your hands on one if that's your fancy.

Not sure your point. Are you saying that private citizens in the US don't own fully automatic firearms, suppressors, and SBRs? Are you saying that these items are illegal for US citizens to own and operate? I personally know several myself, and they didn't have any problems besides the wait times, the BATF is kind of backed up these days with all the applications they are getting. But you are welcome to believe any kind of silliness you want to.

Who said inferior and useless? Different tools have different applications. If you're shooting at unarmed and unprepared people then full auto is not the most effective tool for the job. I think you watch to many Rambo movies, step away from the TV.
How often do you fire a weapon? Have you ever fired a fully automatic weapon?

Yes, I guess $200 dollars is going to deter someone when there is a cheaper alternative that is more effective. However, if they all cost $200 more, then you take the alternative away and the extra $200 just becomes and extra expense of being a criminal. If you think that an extra $200 tax on firearms is going to curtail crime then you aren't very bright.

None of this is going to happen anyhow, I'm just entertaining your liberal fetishes and fantasies. Spider, it doesn't matter if you are 110% wrong and you know it. You will still argue, twist and spin facts, and make up all sorts of crazy things to make yourself look smart and further your liberal agenda. How about this, you keep arguing and I'll continue to own all of my firearms and thousands of rounds of ammo for the next 30-50 years of my life. Get over it.

Just want to point out the absurdity of believing we have "rights." We have no rights. Anyone who believes we do is dumber than a bag of hair. We have a bunch of suggestions written 200+ years ago that the idiots didn't have enough sense to figure out should also apply to women, minorities, people who were illiterate and the poor. Our "rights" were created by wealthy, literate, slave-holding, land-owning men. They're not God-given. They're not irrevocable- just ask all the Japanese-Americans put into internment camps in the 1940's and had all of their rights taken away for no reason at all. Rights aren't rights if they can be arbitrarily revoked. It's nonsense to believe anything else. -EK

You can read the criteria for the definition of an assault weapon under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Criteria_of_an_assault_weapon).  Are you happy now?

Pretty much the same, except for an insignificant detail like rate of fire?

They are inferior because they lack the option to select full-auto.

Is cocaine illegal?  How about crystal meth?  Oops, if you refer to either of those things as "illegal drugs" and say that they are "banned," you're wrong, because they are actually controlled substances and are quite legal.  What a fun and entertaining game this is!

I find it incredibly absurd that gun enthusiasts seem to love to argue endlessly about minutia like "you called it a clip but the proper term is a magazine" and "you said bullet but you should have said cartridge."  This is the equivalent of saying, "you called it a shooting when the correct term is homicide, therefore you are not qualified to discuss this topic."  You have no substantive point to make, so instead you want to argue over terminology (e.g. whether a shooting on school grounds is technically a school shooting).

So why aren't the vast majority of gun crimes being committed with suppressors, then?

This statement does nothing to explain why criminals were happily using fully-automatic weapons prior to the 1934 law banning them.

How many games have you played in the NFL?  Have you ever played a single down of professional football?

Will your answers to the those questions mean that any football opinion you have that conflicts with that of, say, JaMarcus Russell, is automatically and necessarily wrong?

By this logic, if we slap an extra $200 tax on everything but shotguns and revolvers, then we can practically eliminate all gun crime committed with non-shotgun/revolver firearms (exactly as we have with fully-automatic weapons), right?

I mean, if you are claiming that the $200 registration tax is effectively dissuading hardened criminals from obtaining fully-automatic weapons, then this should be easy to reproduce.

i'm really not a fan of the micro-quote method of thread back and forth, it makes it obnoxious to read and difficult to follow, furthermore you're quoting the post right above yours .. pretty silly if you ask me.

I don't like that you used the word "Who" here, especially since you capitalized it. It makes me think of the band, and why would you start a sentence by talking about The Who? It doesn't make any sense at all. Are you purposefully trying to throw the thread off topic by your very first word of this phrase?

This is a fantastic word, especially in rhyming games. You could rhyme it with fred, or bed, or even head. Most importantly is that you used a past tense, which is a bit nostalgic. I like nostalgia. Well done.

Here, you're back to making no sense whatsoever. How can we possibly know what "that" refers to when we don't even know what "this" is. I think this is more communist redirection and anti-american propaganda. I'm sure "that" is Osama's Obama's favorite word.

NOW we get to the crux of the issue. Your disdain for civilians is just jumping off of the screen. I can feel the undertones of this word. I bet you think we are all sheep and the government is really the wolf and not the sheep-hound we think they are.

This is what i'm talking about. Optimus Prime was a semi-truck, so obviously you're referring to the leader of the autobots here. I like this direction. When i was a little boy the original transformers movie came out and it played in a double feature with the my little pony movie. Knowing that boys will sit through a crap ton of ponies to get to the transformers, they made it the 2nd part of the double feature. I found that to be unfortunate.

It's about time that you brought Henry Ford into the conversation. As an early adopter of the assembly line, he more or less automated car production. However, his family owns the Detroit Lions. Therefore i must assume from this obviously solid Causal link that you are a lions fan.

It's not my bag of tea, but if you like dipping your arms in flammable jelly, lighting them and running around yelling firearms at your neighbors before jumping into your pool. I just don't know what to tell you. I'm normally an open minded guy, but you need help.

The shifting in style to a more phoenetic one is appreciated. The letter R is also one of my favorites. Right after F and M and K. The rest of the letters are more or less tied for last. Except for S, I hate S. I even like the wierd russian backwards K more than S.

I don't know why you need to be insulting, There's no need to call names here. We're all adults having conversations about obviously important topics. These discussions will have a giant impact on humanity and i feel we can really achieve something here on this board by just talking about serious topics point by point ad nauseum.

You sir are a racist. Why assume we're all "english". I'll have you know that our mexican friends also use ¿ I don't know what you have against spanish. It is the official language of Miami after all.

I disagree.  The point on proper terminology is completely separate from the point on whether any of us have NFL experience.

I had another reply typed up, until I saw Fau's post and figured that I had better things to do than debate nonsense and foolishness. And just think, you're the site administrator too, great contribution to the discussion, awesome job ;).

Anyhow, great conversation guys, enjoyed it. All the admins, mods, and liberals here at TDMMC, you win this debate thread. Just like all the other threads in this very small forum. Live it up and enjoy your spectacular forum victory, but somehow I don't think it will really matter one way or the other.  You may all now go and plead your case to congress, the American people, and the supreme court.

While you're wasting your time doing that,  I'll do something productive and go open my gun safe and clean, polish, and fondle a couple dozen high capacity, large caliber firearms and assault weapons. Then I'll inventory a few thousand rounds of my personal ammunition. I'm confident that I'll retain possession of them all for a very long time. Anyhow, let me know how your plan to disarm America works out for you and good luck to you.

BTW Spider, A personal friend of mine who is in possession of several NFA items, has read this thread. Your posts have amused and bewildered him. He said that, "since you want illegal firearms off the streets, that you should call the BATF and turn him in and explain to them that the terms illegal, banned, and regulated all mean the same thing." Again, good luck to you in your efforts.

thanks ! .. i do what i can to keep you guys on your toes.

You shouldn't capitalize the article "a" in the middle of a sentence.  Your inability to use proper English makes you clearly unqualified to comment with credibility on this topic.

Is it not incredibly enlightening and productive to completely ignore the ideas being discussed and instead focus on the minutiae of terminology and grammar?

I will not comment on gun control anymore. But I would like to address your previous few posts.

I agree that grammar and proper English have nothing to do with this thread. However, proper terminology and definitions of words we use have everything to do with this topic. A mistyped capital "A" or misspelled word on a 4.5 inch smart phone is a common mistake and doesn't change the meaning of my post. But if you are saying the words illegal and banned have the same definition as regulated. Then you are just lying to further your liberal agenda or to just argue to satisfy some strange fetish you have. If you don't know the meaning of the words you are using, then you have no business pretending that you do.

Here you try to rationalize your misuse of terms to further your liberal argument. So you claim that illegal and banned mean the the same as regulated . Instead of changing the subject to cocaine and meth, lets stick with the topic at hand.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATF)
The ATF enforces other federal laws and regulations relating to alcohol, tobacco, firearms, explosives, and arson in cooperation with other federal, state, local, and international law enforcement agencies.

You claim that "military grade" firearms are illegal and banned since they are regulated by the BATF and taxed. Since alcohol and tobacco are also regulated by the BATF and taxed. By your logic, surely you would agree that alcohol and tobacco would be illegal and banned also. You are just plain wrong or either just lying. Be a man and admit you're wrong.
 
Oh, by the way, Wikipedia seems to disagree with you about cocaine.

No, it doesn't mean that they are automatically wrong. However, JaMarcus Russell has experience in the NFL, therefore he is more qualified to discuss the topic of football than someone who has no experience that doesn't even know the proper terminology of the subject matter.

I have experience with all of the weapons we are discussing. The fact that you didn't answer about your experience with firearms kind of shows that you don't have a clue about firearms in depth and would rather just push your liberal propaganda and opinions, not facts.

The reality is that you would argue with prostitute about the price of free pussy. I have seen many people on this forum say that you will argue about anything, just to argue. They are correct.

Well can she really be considered a prostitute if the pussy is free???

I'm sure that's the debate Spider would argue with her, lol :D

Oh, do you mean like the common mistake of referring to a "suppressor" as a "silencer"?

"Proper terminology" has NOTHING to do with the substance of this post, or even this thread.  In fact, the majority of your contribution to this thread has not been to object to the facts being stated, but to insist that we use less intimidating words to describe these facts:

"school shooting"
"assault weapons"
"military grade"
"illegal"
"silencer"

When it comes to the actual facts at hand, you have mistakenly cited a discredited article as a study* and you have claimed that gun crimes were reduced without tough new national laws when TWO significant national gun regulations (the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Federal Assault Weapons Ban) were passed almost exactly twenty years ago.

These are relevant facts to the discussion.  The term military grade is not.

*Just so we don't get bogged down in more terminology: the difference between an "article" and a "study" is usually peer-review, which would have served to catch the glaring and amateurish error that discredited this article.

Like a petulant child, you still can't admit you lie to further your "arguments". Here is a fact for you, being regulated doesn't mean illegal or banned no matter how you spin it. Anyhow, I'm done bro. You're beyond help, go annoy someone else.............

You're right: it is technically incorrect to call cocaine an illegal drug or to say that fully-automatic weapons are banned.

Neither of those facts have any impact whatsoever on a discussion about the war on drugs or gun control.  Those factoids are a distraction, used to steer the conversation away from the actual question at hand; in this case, the question is, "Why do criminals, who will purportedly ignore any new gun law, overwhelmingly comply with the laws that have nearly eliminated fully-automatic weapons?"

You have been unable to answer this question, and instead want to shift focus to what terms we use to discuss these weapons.

Just a clarification, not all states allow concealed carry.  NJ does not allow carry of any kind.  They are also super strict about transporting in your car; I have to follow many strict protocols just to go to the range.

Yes they do, they just make it very strict so most people don't qualify

" 1. In the case of a private citizen shall specify in detail the urgent necessity for self-protection, as evidenced by specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant's life that cannot be avoided by means other than by issuance of a permit to carry a handgun. Where possible the applicant shall corroborate the existence of any specific threats or previous attacks by reference to reports of such incidents to the appropriate law enforcement agencies; "

http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/info/pdf/firearms/njac-title13-ch54.pdf

I apologize for being a little late, but you are grossly wrong Spider. All the journals at Harvard are published and peer reviewed. It says so on the website for all the journals. So this one was peer reviewed. and at 46 pages, it is hardly an unreviewed opinion piece.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/current/orgs/journals/#HarvardJournalofLawPublicPolicy

"Students at Harvard Law School produce scholarly journals devoted to specific substantive areas of the law and to various approaches to examining legal developments. These peer reviewed publications offer invaluable practical experience in legal writing, editing, and scholarship"

That might be the law on the books but they do not issue carry permits of any kind to anyone except for ex-cops.

Where does it say that everything published is peer-reviewed?  Please cite.

If it was peer-reviewed, then everyone who reviewed it did a horrible job, as there was a glaring error that invalidated the main premise behind the article.  As I already mentioned, the authors repeatedly cited the example of Luxembourg (which has virtually no gun ownership) with a murder rate of 9.01 per 100,000 as one of the highest in Europe, when the actual murder rate was 1/10th of that (0.901), which is one of the lowest.

^^^ He gave the link.

Yes, I saw his link.  It says that they are peer-reviewed journals (which is true), but that is not the same thing as saying that everything published in them is peer-reviewed.  For instance:

Storytelling and Political Resistance: Remembering Derrick Bell (with a story about Dalton Trumbo) (http://www3.law.harvard.edu/journals/hjrej/files/2012/11/HBK1031.pdf), Harvard Journal on Racial and Ethnic Justice
“Unsportsmanlike” Conduct and That Richard Sherman Interview (http://harvardjsel.com/2014/01/richard-sherman/), Harvard Journal on Sports and Entertainment Law
Book Review of Presumed Incompetent: The Intersections of Race and Class for Women in Academia (http://harvardjlg.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Scott-Presumed-Incompetent-Book-Review.pdf), Harvard Journal of Law & Gender

I am rather skeptical that any of the above articles were peer-reviewed (in the academic sense of being subject to evaluation by other experts in the field before publication).

Sorry to disappoint you, but I provided the information made available from Harvard. If you think Harvard is lying or that their use of the term "peer reviewed" is being used incorrectly, then it is up to you to provide evidence to back your theory. I do not have to provide evidence to support your claims. I provided evidence that shows your earlier claim that it was an opinion piece and not peer reviewed is incorrect...according to Harvard.

No, you did not.  You provided evidence that they are peer-reviewed journals, which does not mean everything published in them is peer-reviewed (see: the above examples).

But even if that particular item was peer-reviewed, that doesn't change the fact that it was critically flawed and the conclusions are therefore suspect.  I already provided links to several other Harvard studies that come to the opposite conclusion.  So if Harvard studies mean something, why are you so quick to dismiss all the ones that say more guns = more gun crime in favor of the one flawed one that says the opposite?

For anyone who hasn't looked at these links referred to (myself included until now) Spider is accurate that the same author cites the number differently in a separate article (but the second draws the same conclusions as the first). Also it is worth noting that the tables where these numbers of .9 & 9.0 are given cite the same source for information. In the second writing, where the author gives the correct total of .9, his notations say that he has corrected that data which was supplied by his source. Therefore I can only assume that any peer review would not have caught the error since the error itself was in the source material which would require a deeper level of review since the source was from what I assume is the Canadian government (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Juristat: Homicide in Canada, for the years 2001-04).

I was able to find the Juristat: Homicide In Canada statistics from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics here (http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/researchers-chercheurs/result-resultat.action?series=85-002-X&sort=0&themeId=0&authorState=0&MMK=&showAll=false&themeState=0&date=&lang=eng&author=&univ=7&start=1&search=&dateState=0&seriesState=0&currentFilter=date&end=25#FPubDate) and could find no mention of Luxembourg at all.  Furthermore, as far as I can tell, in the second writing he makes no mention of errors in his source.  He simply says:

2. A few statistics in this table were corrected for errors, specifically, the murder rate for Luxembourg and the gun ownership rate for Germany.

Where does he attribute those errors to his source material?

^^^ It is there and stated as 9.01 as the author said. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/85-002-x2003008-eng.pdf

Also, if you provide a source for your data and then say there were correction in the data, you are stating there was an error in your source. Where else would the error have been?

The error could have been in his transcription of the data, but fair enough.

Video about being a responsible gun owner. You guys will should like this.

http://youtu.be/qKHeXC7L85s

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/07/10/report-number-of-concealed-carry-permits-surges-as-violent-crime-rate-drops/ (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/07/10/report-number-of-concealed-carry-permits-surges-as-violent-crime-rate-drops/)