ADVERTISEMENT

Stanford takes on the NRA (and evidently Texas)...

Fine. If some lieberal college in Colonfonia wants to ban guns, they can knock themselves out doing it on their campus. They have the right to control that. But thats where the control stops. Kids don't have to go there or live in that crappy bankrupt state. Its a free society where people who abide by the laws and constitution can live where they wish. I choose to live in a state where I have more freedom than those idiots do.
 
You have to wonder if those two desperate escaped convict/murderers from New York will start looking for a nearby house to invade. Most of the home owners in NY are really scared that might happen from what i read - being killed by a couple of desperate thugs on the run and them living in a state with oppressive anti gun laws - people unable to defend themselves in their own homes. Home invasions bring back memories of the Starkweather-Fugate murder spree in Nebraska when those two killers invaded a Lincoln home and killed the owners and a maid, robbed and looted the residence and stole a car then continued on their way to kill again and again.

The idea that a murderer would somehow not find a way to get their hands on a weapon because the law says so is pretty ridiculous. But an oppressive govt and a compliant, naive society is always at risk.
 
Gun laws are on the low end of factors which contribute to gun violence. Let's compare Chicago to Houston. Identical size, identical median income, similar demographics...one has some of the most stringent gun laws in the county while one has the most lenient. One city has 5 times the number of murders as the other this year. Wanna guess which one?
 
Gun laws are for honest people. A criminal is normally someone who doesn't obey the law.
 
"based on educated judgments about the best statistical models"--Stanford

Clearly, if you disagree your judgment isn't educated and your models are not the best.
 
Wow..

Where is the statistical data backing up this claim with the number of crimes committed by individuals with state issued concealed carry permits?

I have to give this Donohue guy credit though.. He also wrote an article on "How Legalized Abortion reduced the Crime Rate"..
 
Last edited:
Believe me good folks, if there were a couple of escaped murderers on the loose (like the two in NY) - roaming around in this part of Oklahoma, you'd want me living next door to you. WATU obvioulsy couldn't help you and the cops are always too late - except to clean up the bloody mess the bad guys left behind.
 
Just thought I'd look up the stats on home invasions. This is from 2010. But it shows that home invasions and the violence from them are a major concern. An average of 3.7 million occurred and over a quarter million of those became violent. These are compiled averages. If you don't want to read the entire text, the highlights will suffice.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt

I'd like to point out that of the 3.7 m invasions, those are households and not individuals per say. The traditional average american family is 4 plus, so I assume you can multiply that 3.7 m by a factor of 4 who would be threatened by the illegal event.
 
Last edited:
I had the guns I wanted to in military; in fact as my ship's Weapons Officer I had at my disposal everything from a .45 pistol to 5 inch guns and a lot of training on them.

Like many of friends, including Marine Lts who let platoons in Vietnam, I have had zero interest in guns since. The simplistic Houston/Chicago comparison created to support sound bites on Fox, gun shows, and NRA meetings is just one more confirmation that there's no more validity to the NRA's claims about guns reducing violence than the cigarette industry's attempts to market cigarettes as good for one's health.
 
Can we agree that gun laws make very little difference in murder rates one way or the other?
 
WATU2 said:
I had the guns I wanted to in military; in fact as my ship's Weapons Officer I had at my disposal everything from a .45 pistol to 5 inch guns and a lot of training on them.

Like many of friends, including Marine Lts who let platoons in Vietnam, I have had zero interest in guns since. The simplistic Houston/Chicago comparison created to support sound bites on Fox, gun shows, and NRA meetings is just one more confirmation that there's no more validity to the NRA's claims about guns reducing violence than the cigarette industry's attempts to market cigarettes as good for one's health.
Click to expand...

I'll defend your right not to possess a gun of any kind if you'll defend my right to own one of my choice that will protect my life/family.

And BTW who got us into Nam in the first place? I'm pretty sure it was that lieberal POTUS LBJ who contrived the Gulf of Tonkin "excuse" to send american ground troops. Right? LBJ was your guy, not mine.
 
Lets make a deal. I'll give up my weapons when Obama's secret service does. My life is as important to me as his is to him. Oh, and maybe its time for VP Biden to give up that shotgun of his as well. Didn't Obama have a shotgun too. Just a thought.
 
WATU2 said:
Right to Carry Laws lead to more violence

"The totality of the evidence based on educated judgments about the best statistical models suggests that right-to-carry laws are associated with substantially higher rates" of aggravated assault, rape, robbery and murder, said Donohue.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/november/donohue-guns-study-111414.html
Click to expand...
How abot we make a c\
WATU2 said:
Right to Carry Laws lead to more violence

"The totality of the evidence based on educated judgments about the best statistical models suggests that right-to-carry laws are associated with substantially higher rates" of aggravated assault, rape, robbery and murder, said Donohue.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/november/donohue-guns-study-111414.html
Click to expand...
lets make a deal. we let the lefties modify the second amendment for some stricter gun regulations and we also modify the 14th amendment to stop "anchor babies"
 
Three things to remember.

1. The Constitution says there is a right to keep and bear arms. Good luck amending that.

2. There are around a quarter of a billion firearms on the US. No one knows how many because many were bought before records were kept and there is no record of where they went. Grandpa's old shot gun that is a family heirloom will kill you. It used to be buying a gun was as simple as buying a shovel. Even if registration is required, are they going to search every house, tool shed, office, or bar.

3. A firearm has an extremely long life if it is cleaned after use and a few drop of oil are added.
 
TUMe said:
Three things to remember.

1. The Constitution says there is a right to keep and bear arms. Good luck amending that.

2. There are around a quarter of a billion firearms on the US. No one knows how many because many were bought before records were kept and there is no record of where they went. Grandpa's old shot gun that is a family heirloom will kill you. It used to be buying a gun was as simple as buying a shovel. Even if registration is required, are they going to search every house, tool shed, office, or bar.

3. A firearm has an extremely long life if it is cleaned after use and a few drop of oil are added.
Click to expand...

Good point. Although the constitution has been amended several times, the Bill Of Rights has not. And the additon of it were actually "amendments" to the original Constitution. So amending the BofR would be equivalent of amending an amendment, something that would imo be frowned on by most fair minded americans who would fear a precedent set of infringing our other rights of speech, press, religion, assembly etc.


imo
 
WATU2 said:
Ah I see your argument now:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/nra-officals-blames-pastor-charleston-church-shooting-article-1.2263911
Click to expand...

WATU uses the strawman argument. Bring in an outrageous comment by someone and knock it down. Ignore valid arguments. There are serious questions and problems with major gun control changes. Yes, procedures can be tightened. But the villain in this latest round had a gun that was bought by his incredibly stupid father according to the law.
 
I'm sorry, WATU, are you saying that guns cause global warming? True the "gun powder" does burn to CO2 as do candles, cigars, and trash to energy plants.

Actually, fire pits for parties have become popular in some areas. I think if we plotted the number of fire pits and cookouts per year versus the global temperature there would be as much agreement with the increase as there is for guns. Oklahoma might do well on this because it's pretty hot here and fire pits tend to be more popular in the North.

I would suggest that World War II was probably the highest time for gunfire in the last couple of centurys, not to mention the number of guns, so we need to see how global temperature was effected by gunfire. Perhaps a federal study is in order.

Oh, wait, this is a thread about gun control, did you mean to tie gun control to global warming?
 
Last edited:
TUMe said:
I'm sorry, WATU, are you saying that guns cause global warming? True the "gun powder" does burn to CO2 as do candles, cigars, and trash to energy plants.

Actually, fire pits for parties have become popular in some areas. I think if we plotted the number of fire pits and cookouts per year versus the global temperature there would be as much agreement with the increase as there is for guns. Oklahoma might do well on this because it's pretty hot here and fire pits tend to be more popular in the North.

I would suggest that World War II was probably the highest time for gunfire in the last couple of centurys, not to mention the number of guns, so we need to see how global temperature was effected by gunfire. Perhaps a federal study is in order.

Oh, wait, this is a thread about gun control, did you mean to tie gun control to global warming?
Click to expand...

So if WATU "denies" he made a mistake posting a global warming link to this thread, does that make WATU a global warming denier? :eek:;)
 
Neither the article from the Stanford News nor WATU's statements are supported by the study. What the study really says is that the original NRC study is probably flawed and that in some of the estimates there exists a slim statistical correlation between right to carry laws and an increase in aggravated assault. Pay attention to this paragraph from the abstract:

"Across the basic seven Index I crime categories, the strongest evidence of a statistically significant effect would be for aggravated assault, with 11 of 28 estimates suggesting that RTC laws increase this crime at the .10 confidence level. An omitted variable bias test on our preferred Table 8a results suggests that our estimated 8 percent increase in aggravated assaults from RTC laws may understate the true harmful impact of RTC laws on aggravated assault, which may explain why this finding is only significant at the .10 level in many of our models. Our analysis of the year-by-year impact of RTC laws also suggests that RTC laws increase aggravated assaults. Our analysis of admittedly imperfect gun aggravated assaults provides suggestive evidence that RTC laws may be associated with large increases in this crime, perhaps increasing such gun assaults by almost 33 percent.

As opposed to the confirmation stipulated by the Stanford article we are instead dealing with estimates, less than half of which support the concept that "right to carry" laws have any sort of correlation with an increase in crime. Not exactly earth shaking results for either side of the debate.

I do fully agree with the concept that WATU and his buddies should not have firearms.

Thanks.
 
What both the article and the short excerpt that you cite have in common is that bursts the NRA"s existential claim the more guns make people safer. A drum beat that is central to their fund raising and political strategy. The NRA's 'research' comes not from Stanford, but a defrocked x-professor who is supported by funding through third parties by the NRA. It's the cigarette company anti-cancer defense all over again.
 
Last edited:
So, noone is advocating the idea you should be forced to own a gun of any kind. Stay away from them if you wish. As a matter of fact, that would be a good thing if you are afraid of them.

However, I do wish you good luck if you ever need the protection. Maybe just the use of "harsh language" can make that home invader run for cover. Is there some federallly approved Obamaphrases you've memorized for that occasion?

"Stop Intruder' or I'll hit you with this nerfball!" :confused::eek::oops:o_O
 
wholechart.png
 
After all the hoopla about guns and violence, I offered a chance to anti-gun activists to say what changes they would like to see. I intentionally gave them no hard time. All of the anti-gun people who read this board...let's say for instance WATU... gave no suggestion except for Goldfan.

I thanked Goldfan, the only one who bothered to answer, and offered no criticism of his remark. It is very easy to find fault. It is very hard to offer a reasonable and workable solution.

When the fool killed the people in church, it was because they were black. When the next fool killed those who said that they were Christians, it was the guns fault. He only wounded those who denied religion. I am not religious but I can see an example of an anti-Christian hate crime.
 
WATU again states that there is a problem but doesn't offer a suggestion on how to deal with guns in this country. Finding problems can be easy. Tell us how to fix it.
 
Of course Congress has a better idea about research; ban it.

Inhofe must be envious he can't do the same with climate research.
 
WATU doesn't have any more of a right to take away my guns than he does to take away my car keys. Its that simple. We, as american citizens, have a right to own and possess both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back