<p>I am seriously disappointed by the NRA impeding the collection of good data. IMHO, I fear that the data won’t end the arguments. We see that conflict with economics, taxes, abortion, etc. We don’t seem to resolve the issues associated with the hot button topics despite the data. I have and continue to advocate common ground as a solution to these difficult questions. Unfortunately, we’ve entered a political climate where it is an all or nothing paradigm. But maybe I am being too naive that we can meet on common ground.</p>
<p>The problem with data collection in this instance has been pretty well documented, frugaldoctor. To begin with, you have circumstances like the two “prevented crimes” I have first hand experience with. If I had had a gun and made reference to it, that would have been recorded as a crime prevented by gun use, even though in fact it was a crime prevented by the perp’s awareness of the presence of someone who was resisting. Next, you’d have the folks who are sure they scared off the burglars by cocking their 12 gauge, and while raccoons look like burglars, that report of a gun-prevented crime would also be a false positive. Then there’s the guy who starts a fight and then"ends it" by pulling a gun, and reports his successful gun-prevented crime. The Clackamas Mall reports are another example of how a false positive can be generated. The false positives will be legion when you are relying on self-reporting. Even when there is objective evidence - say, a dead person - in many cases you’re going to have to rely primarily on the version of events provided by the guy who pulled the trigger, which will lead to false positives as well. </p>
<p>The inherent difficulty in established that (a) a crime would have been committed, but was prevented from happening, and (b) the possession of a gun by a good guy on site was the determining factor in the crime being prevented, are very difficult to overcome.</p>
<p>And proxy statistics are next to useless. Mustard and Lott generated a study from which they concluded that the increased number of guns being carried in public caused crime to decrease, based on comparing crime rates in “must issue” states vs. states where obtaining permits to carry concealed weapons were more restricted. (“More guns, less crime”) But it turned out that their results correlated with the “cause” they posited no better than they correlated with other unrelated laws selected at random. [url=<a href=“http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/TabarrokPublishedPapers.html]Published”>Published or Forthcoming Papers of Alexander Tabarrok]Published</a> or Forthcoming Papers of Alexander Tabarrok<a href=“I%20find%20the%20subordinate%20conclusion%20that%20a%20correlation%20between%20adoption%20of%20must%20carry%20laws%20and%20a%20combination%20of%20lower%20rate%20of%20crimes%20against%20people%20coupled%20with%20a%20higher%20rate%20of%20property%20crimes%20is%20statistically%20significant%20to%20be%20interesting%20as%20it%20assumes%20a%20zero%20sum%20of%20%22crimes%22%20in%20which%20a%20person%20will%20be%20motivated%20to%20commit%20a%20crime%20in%20general,%20and%20then%20choose%20which%20crime%20based%20on%20various%20factors.%20%20This%20does%20not%20correspond%20to%20my%20experience%20in%20real%20life;%20committing%20murder%20vs.%20committing%20burglary%20is%20not%20usually%20a%20coin-flip%20sort%20of%20thing.%20%20But%20perhaps%20there%20is%20an%20explanation%20for%20it%20that%20I’m%20overlooking.”>/url</a></p>
<p>Even if the problems with obtaining reliable data which would support the “guns are good” side of the argument could be surmounted, if the answer was not what the folks who believe in that position wanted to hear… well, catahoula has already pre-emptively dismissed any academic study whose results don’t match up, and SamuraiLandshark has done the same. I think they represent a lot of gun owners. I would assume that there are “my mind is made up, don’t confuse me with facts” types on the other side as well.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, I think that it will be useful to get more data in the future, and as I noted, it was reported that the NRA-backed ban on scientific study of the question has been lifted in the wake of Sandy Hook. People who haven’t become committed to one answer or the other won’t necessarily just stick out there figurative tongues at reasonably reliable data and research. You might change your mind, I might change my mind, and a lot of people who haven’t taken a position one way or the other might make a different decision than they would otherwise. I’m all for data and reason-based analysis.</p>
<p>The New York times dug into records recently to find that accidental gun deaths of children were about 2 times more common than people had believed. One of the problems was that they are sometimes classified as “accidents” and sometimes as “homicide”. </p>
<p>In most of these cases, proper gun locks (fingerprint or better) and gun safes would have prevented the tragedies that occurred. Children are curious, they will find everything and do their best to figure out how to open Pandora’s box. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/children-and-guns-the-hidden-toll.html?_r=0[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/children-and-guns-the-hidden-toll.html?_r=0</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Kluge, I have been reading your posts (at least most of them) and I am not sure what your position is with respect to homeowners having handguns in their homes. Are you against allowing people to have handguns? If not, what are you proposing?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nah, catahoula dismissed a horrifying stat as having little bearing on the page of speculation it was dropped into. As to Saumrai, I took her point to be: it ain’t a courtroom where convincing the jury your opponents are monsters is a first and necessary step towards conviction.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>News to me the NRA blocked even collection. Maybe mini or you would link to something?</p>
<p>[Obama’s</a> order eases restrictions on gun research - The Denver Post](<a href=“Obama’s order eases restrictions on gun research – The Denver Post”>Obama’s order eases restrictions on gun research – The Denver Post)</p>
<p>Catahoula, here is a link to the story about the restriction. In the story is another link to the 750 page bill that included language to block the funding.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/blackout-how-the-nra-suppressed-gun-violence[/URL]”>Blackout: How the NRA suppressed gun violence research;
<p>From oldmom’s source:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I find this unconscionable.</p>
<p>Goldenpooch, I’m sorry if I haven’t stated my opinion clearly enough. The Supreme Court has ruled that there is an individual right to own guns which extends (at least) to keeping “normal” guns in your home. I don’t argue with that. So the answer to your question as to “allow” is, no, I’m not proposing that. </p>
<p>As to my “position” with regard to people having handguns in their homes, I think that it makes sense for some people, specifically including those who use them for sport of some sort, but not for most, including, I believe, the majority of people in America who have obtained a gun “for protection.” I think that most people who have bought a handgun “for protection” are being foolish and immature, and in fact are exposing themselves and their families to unnecessary risks, based on a thought process which overestimates the likelihood of a situation arising in which it would be helpful to have and even more so their own ability to retrieve it and use it in a manner which will help the situation and underestimates the likelihood of something being done with the item which could cause harm to the gun owners, members of their family, or other innocents.</p>
<p>I understand that people don’t like being told that somebody else thinks that something they’ve done is foolish, or that they are probably exaggerating their abilities and ignoring their shortcomings. I do foolish things all the time, frequently involving overestimating my abilities (I own a motor scooter, for example) and my response to people who look askance is generally “MYOB.”</p>
<p>But I view posting in threads like this as a sort of “Uh, sir? Do you realize that you actually have no clothes on?” sort of public service. The NRA, gun manufacturers, and people who are psychologically invested in the validity of their own decisions are actively urging people to buy guns and arguing that anyone who questions whether handgun ownership is a good idea hate freedom and the Constitution and are a bunch of pussies who would just as soon let the bad guys push everyone around “but I’m not going to let that happen to me!” And in service to that message they argue vehemently that being a hero with your gun is a reasonably commonplace thing (which I believe is actually factually false) and the bad stuff that happens with guns in home only happen to “other people.” </p>
<p>Furthermore, I believe that the states should maintain a register of every firearm owned by everyone in the state just as is done with cars, and that sale or transfer of them should be handled through a registration process like sale or transfer of cars as well. I find that process to be very much in tune with the Constitutional recognition of the need for a well regulated militia. (And anyone who disagrees with me on the "hates the Constitution!;))</p>
<p>So, that’s my “position.” I find it interesting that you conflated my having a “position” with “not allowing” others to act in noncompliance with it.</p>
<p>Skimmed both pieces (but not the 750 page bill, thank you) and can’t avoid the feeling that ‘data collection’ is something that’s not prohibited. The complaints seemed to be that the language is so vague that they can blame everything, including the sink, on the bill, instead.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Kellerman! That who I was trying to think of a page or two back, kluge, back when I was asking what dragging a grant through a trailer park might turn up. The names that popped into my mind were Briffa and Mann but… silly me, they’ve grown fat off an entirely different line of research. </p>
<p>Kellerman was the one that had to publish the retraction for inflating ugly stats by around… 50%, wasn’t he?</p>
<p>"As to my “position” with regard to people having handguns in their homes, I think that it makes sense for some people, specifically including those who use them for sport of some sort, but not for most, including, I believe, the majority of people in America who have obtained a gun “for protection.” </p>
<p>How would you enforce this? Wouldn’t people just say they are buying handguns for a sporting purpose if they know they would be turned down if they said the guns were for protection?</p>
<p>Goldenpooch, right now I’d be satisfied if people considering buying a gun took the time to examine the actual risks and benefits associated with owning a gun, and making a rational decision based on reality, instead of the gauzy NRA hero fantasy that jumps out at you on thousands of websites and other information sources. </p>
<p>Alternatively, I’d like it if people who are considering buying a gun understood that if they take that step many other folks will not view them as a macho, swaggering, hero-any-day-now but as a dumb poser.</p>
<p>I would additionally like criminal responsibility attached to those who injure others unintentionally with guns or leave them where kids can get hold of them. These incidents are not “tragic accidents.” They are nearly always preventable.</p>
<p>Kluge, I think you are now saying it is impossible (practically speaking) to write a law banning handguns for home possession. I think you would agree there is no way to legislate that people appreciate the risks and benefits of gun ownership. As far as I know, we haven’t found a way to outlaw stupidity or to change someone’s character.</p>
<p>Goldenpooch - in posts 412 and 415 you seem to be missing my point: I’m primarily interested in getting the truth out, not “banning” anything. I’m interested in getting information out that will change people’s minds. Consider: the percentage of Americans who choose to smoke has been cut by more than 50% over the past 50 years. Smoking is still legal, although the places you can do it has been restricted so as to honor the rights of others not to breath the exhaust. </p>
<p>I think that most of that reduction in smoking is the product of social disapproval - smoking isn’t “cool” any more in most demographics. A guy who once would think he looked sexy and sophisticated when he lit up his Marlboro now has a pretty good idea that other people think he’s a loser. People have finally come to recognize that smoking does give you an increased risk of a painful and early death. That’s a pretty good disincentive. So while we may not be able to outlaw stupidity, once we expose it to the light of day so people can see it for what it is there will be a significant number of people who will take another option.</p>
<p>Granted, 20% smokers is still a lot. But it used to be more.</p>
<p>Sally 305, I don’t really see much point to your suggestion. They are not doing it on purpose. That’s kind of the problem: the danger inherent in having a gun in your home has been driven out of the discussion. So what you’re suggesting is a “sharpened steel spike” response - in theory it should work, but in fact it probably would make no difference.</p>
<p>No, kluge, my mind isn’t made up on any issue. </p>
<p>If I was so inflexible in my thinking, I probably would have always thought one thing and stayed a Democrat. </p>
<p>Instead, I have evolved my thinking on many issues, involving all kinds of social issues. Now I am a lot more Libertarian than anything else. </p>
<p>You are welcome to believe anything you wish. I had all these same arguments a few years ago back on a separate section of this forum with you, as well as others, and it was just as enlightening, then. </p>
<p>Yet, I still have a gun in my house. And you do not. </p>
<p>So on that score, I guess we might have both made up our minds. At least for now, anyway. </p>
<p>I do not consider myself any of the words you used in your post/s. not a hero or a poser or a loser or gun nut or whatever other things you want to call me. It is fine. Words do not hurt me. </p>
<p>I also have emergency food and water, but it doesn’t make me a doomsday prepper, either.</p>
<p>That’s interesting, SLS - I was a libertarian when I was younger, and evolved into a liberal democrat. Funny how those things happen, eh?</p>
<p>
Well, it kind of depends on how much food and water you have, doesn’t it? I mean, a few day’s worth is probably a sensible idea; but a years worth and… well, a year’s worth and you are a doomsday prepper, aren’t you? ;)</p>
<p>I probably have two weeks worth of food and water. It wouldn’t be a fun time, mind you, but we would probably survive. I do live in earthquake territory, so it is a concern. </p>
<p>My H thinks we need more whiskey and beer, because you never have enough of those things. ;)</p>
<p>“If you’re not liberal when you’re young, you have no heart. If you’re not conservative when you’re older, you have no brain.”</p>
<p>I am not sure who said this although some attribute it to Churchill. I am a social libertarian and a fiscal conservative.</p>