California Gun Control Insanity

[markh]

So it doesn't matter if the guns are locked in a safe? I am more likely to be murdered? That is a load of BS. The bad gun will open the safe itself and kill me? Oooga booga

[ms maggie]

This should be good.

What did we ever do before Google?

Well string cheese sounds more evil than say processed cheese or natural cheese, doncha think?

[Dryfire]

How many string cheese deaths are there in any given year?

Don't know and don't care, but if it saves the life of just one child it should be banned.

The majority of childhood choking injuries are associated with food items, including hot dogs, cheese sticks/cheese chunks, hard candies, nuts, grapes, carrots, popcorn, marshmallows, and peanut butter. Objects that are round, ovoid or cylindrical in shape are associated with the greatest risk of choking death.

http://www.safekids.org/our-work/res...act-sheet.html

String cheese or motzarella(sp) sticks can easily choke a child. I know of a 4 yr old who choked to death on string cheese. It formed a ball in his throat. So sad.

http://voices.yahoo.com/food-kids-ch...t-7232822.html

[Wild Eyed Southern Boy]

What happened to your arm? How's the other guy look?

Pretty interesting article.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...nswers/272727/

Thanks for asking. Simple, yet annoyingly painful ulnar nerve to go with carpal tunnel in wrist.

Apparently I have been bested in combat by the largemouth bass. No kidding, too much fishing last fall may be the culprit.

Find out in two weeks if the knife awaits.

[Dryfire]

Thanks for asking. Simple, yet annoyingly painful ulnar nerve to go with carpal tunnel in wrist.

Apparently I have been bested in combat by the largemouth bass. No kidding, too much fishing last fall may be the culprit.

Find out in two weeks if the knife awaits.

I had both wrist operated on to relieve the numbness & pain. Short recovery time and the operation wasn't all that bad. I wish I could claim the same on my trigger fingers. Had 3 done at one time (LH baby, ring and middle) and still need to get another (LH index) fixed. That was in June of last year and I'm still not 100%. Hand still gets sore on occasions.

Best of luck if you need the operation.

Cause for mine. Too much bass fishing and working on computers for over 30 years.

[Daan]

Pretty interesting article.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...nswers/272727/

Yes, it is interesting.

I notice it uses "soda-pop-causes-teen-violence" Hemenway as an authority.

Quote

How often are guns used in self-defense?

There are no comprehensive records kept of incidents where guns are used in self-defense, so the only way to know is to ask people. Data from the National Crime Victimization Survey suggest that a gun is used in self-defense about 60,000 to 120,000 times each year. Several other surveys confirm this estimate. By comparison, each year about a million violent crimes involve guns. This means guns are used to commit a crime about 10 times as often as they are used for self-defense.

A few surveys in the early 1990s suggested that there are millions gun self-defense incidents each year, but there are very good reasons to believe that these estimates were improperly calculated and these numbers are way off, more than 10 times too high. If the numbers really were this high, this would imply that pretty much every gunshot wound in America is the result of somebody protecting him or herself.

Even among the more accurate surveys, according to a panel of criminal court judges who reviewed survey respondents' stories, about half the time the gun use was "probably illegal," even assuming the gun itself had been purchased legally.

End Quote

There are links embedded that refer to Hemenway's work as the official word about this question.

Too bad they don't reference research that conflicts with Hemenway's opinion.

Such as:

Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun

"The use of guns in self-defense was examined by means of an analysis of previous research on the topic and a survey designed to correct all of the known correctable or avoidable flaws noted by critics of previous surveys.
Abstract: The survey was an anonymous random-digit-dialed telephone survey that reached a nationally representative sample of adults age 18 years of age and over in the lower 48 States and living in households with telephones. The results of this survey, as well as an analysis of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), indicate that defensive gun use is very common in the United States and that it is probably substantially more common than criminal gun use. Little reason exists to continue accepting the NCVS data as even approximately valid. The gross inconsistencies between the NCVS and all other sources of information make it reasonable to suppose that all but a handful of NCVS victims who had used a gun for protection in the reported incidents refrained from mentioning this gun use. Findings indicated that regulatory measures that effectively reduce gun availability among the noncriminal majority also would reduce defensive gun uses that would otherwise have saved lives, prevented injuries, thwarted rape attempts, driven off burglars, and helped victims retain their property. Tables and footnotes"

The 38 page paper is here:

http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

.

[ms maggie]

Daan, from above:
The results of this survey, as well as an analysis of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), indicate that defensive gun use is very common in the United States and that it is probably substantially more common than criminal gun use.

???????

Think about what you're suggesting here. Also this study is nearly 20 yrs old and the one table (Table 1) that purports to list all the studies that support it's thesis: that link conveniently doesn't work.

They claim the NCVS is flawed but in the above claim analysis if it supports their thesis. Again huh???

[Grindelwald]

Sorry to point out how foolish you are but the link I pointed out is on page 7 of the google search you posted.

You evidently do not know what you are posting.

Pathetic.

Unlike you, I do not have unlimited time to piss away, I'm not going to bother looking through 7 pages. I stopped after page 1. I'm sorry that you do not have anything better to do with your life.

You submit a link and don't even know who wrote it.

The study is flawed. Badly. But you know that already. (Hint: Kellerman)
“The rest of us will look at facts, and stay in touch with reality and science, something the Republicans hate.”
No, you manipulate statements and then convince yourself they are facts.
And yes, with this splint and restraint on my right forearm, it does make the keyboard difficult for one with already marginal typing skills. Maybe in another week or so I can better respond to your liking.

“Through your rags I see your vanity.”
― Socrates

I know exactly what I posted. You just can't deal with reality. I don't have an issue if law abiding citizens want to own guns. It's their choice. I'm just pointing out what statistics say. You're free to do what you want, just don't put the rest of the non gun owners of America at risk by fighting gun control.

[Daan]

Daan, from above:
The results of this survey, as well as an analysis of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), indicate that defensive gun use is very common in the United States and that it is probably substantially more common than criminal gun use.

???????

Think about what you're suggesting here. Also this study is nearly 20 yrs old and the one table (Table 1) that purports to list all the studies that support it's thesis: that link conveniently doesn't work.

They claim the NCVS is flawed but in the above claim analysis if it supports their thesis. Again huh???

Agree that Table 1 isn't accessible. Am trying to locate it.

The paper claims the NCVS is defective because:
Quote

Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to Rs as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Rs are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. [25] In short, it is made very clear to Rs that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the Rs and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be re contacted.

End Quote

.

[Daan]

Unlike you, I do not have unlimited time to piss away, I'm not going to bother looking through 7 pages. I stopped after page 1. I'm sorry that you do not have anything better to do with your life.

Neither do I "have unlimited time to piss away".

But you do spend a significant amount of time here trying to defend your position on guns.

When you post a complete Google search, don't you care if it contains information that undermines your position?

If you don't care, that's pathetic.

.

[Grindelwald]

Neither do I "have unlimited time to piss away".

But you do spend a significant amount of time here trying to defend your position on guns.

When you post a complete Google search, don't you care if it contains information that undermines your position?

If you don't care, that's pathetic.

I AM NOT GOING TO SEARCH THROUGH 7 PAGES OF A GOOGLE SEARCH LOOKING FOR AN ARTICLE ON SODA. For one, it has absolutely nothing to do with guns, and does not undermine my opinion in any way. Soda may or may not have an affect on violence in kids. And I think that's the 3rd time I've stated that. I will not be so closed-minded as to just say "That can't be true."

[ms maggie]

Daan: sorry on iPhone can't reply w yr message cc'd.

You're/they're suggesting that nearly everyone lied to the census workers. Based on what?

[Daan]

I AM NOT GOING TO SEARCH THROUGH 7 PAGES OF A GOOGLE SEARCH LOOKING FOR AN ARTICLE ON SODA. For one, it has absolutely nothing to do with guns, and does not undermine my opinion in any way. Soda may or may not have an affect on violence in kids. And I think that's the 3rd time I've stated that. I will not be so closed-minded as to just say "That can't be true."

You use David Hemenway and his research to support your position. It's been pointed out by another poster the Hemenway has credibility problems. And that claim of his that "soda causes teen violence", I think is an example.

If you don't care to that your Google search contained a "red flag" (to use your words), then what do you think you are accomplishing?

Pathetic.

.

[Daan]

Daan: sorry on iPhone can't reply w yr message cc'd.

You're/they're suggesting that nearly everyone lied to the census workers. Based on what?

No.

They are not anonymous responders. I, for one, would not and do not respond to questions about firearms I may or may not own; especially to strangers who would then have my name and address.

I think Table 1 is included in this article:

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/ar...e-control.aspx

.

[Grindelwald]

You use David Hemenway and his research to support your position. It's been pointed out by another poster the Hemenway has credibility problems. And that claim of his that "soda causes teen violence", I think is an example.

If you don't care to that your Google search contained a "red flag" (to use your words), then what do you think you are accomplishing?

Pathetic.

Nope, those were your words. And Hemenway does not have a credibility problem, and the soda study is not proof of anything.

[ms maggie]

No.

They are not anonymous responders. I, for one, would not and do not respond to questions about firearms I may or may not own; especially to strangers who would then have my name and address.

I think Table 1 is included in this article:

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/ar...e-control.aspx

.

No? No what? The NCVS data showed one tenth the number of defensive gun incidents vs the study you reference. If you look at ehe NCVS survey, the intimate details it asks for make questions re gun use seem mild.

[Daan]

Nope, those were your words. And Hemenway does not have a credibility problem, and the soda study is not proof of anything.

Nope. "red flags" are your words.

http://talk.baltimoresun.com/showpos...3&postcount=98

You are looking foolish.

Quit while you're behind.

.

[Grindelwald]

What he "found" was flawed, biased, and un-scientific, and has been rejected by most people with a fundamental understanding that his conclusion was pre-determined.

Blast from the past: David Hemenway comes out from under his rock

He has a long long history of bias, anti-gun publishing, and using slanted statistics to arrive at his "conclusions."

A simple Google search on his name should have raised so many red flags that you should have been embarrassed to base ANY statement on his anti-gun biased flawed "studies."

Nope. "red flags" are your words.

http://talk.baltimoresun.com/showpos...3&postcount=98

You are looking foolish.

Quit while you're behind.

Actually we're both wrong. They're Jeebus' words. Nice dodge of the rest of my post. Why do you always address the most inane stuff? Because you can't argue the big stuff with the adults?

[Daan]

No? No what? The NCVS data showed one tenth the number of defensive gun incidents vs the study you reference. If you look at ehe NCVS survey, the intimate details it asks for make questions re gun use seem mild.

"No", they did not lie, they just aren't obligated to respond directly to a government official asking questions about their defensive gun use.

.

[ms maggie]

"No", they did not lie, they just aren't obligated to respond directly to a government official asking questions about their defensive gun use.

.

But you think people would answer honestly to an anonymous voice on the phone? Because that voice doesn't know who is responding or where they live? Seriously??? People are that stupid?

Thx for the NRA article: it's interesting how they start the article: that the Glick paper was the first study done to quantify the value of defensive gun activity. Does that sound like an objective study? Couldn't make heads or tails if the chart-- pretty bush league actually, surprised a large org like the NRA would go w such poor journalism product.