Uh huh. Sure he did. But Fox openly supporting GOP candidates is totally OK, right? After all, if one type of bias is bad they must all be bad, right?

vpb: Yes, and it doesn't matter than they work almost everywhere else on earth because "why don't you move there, that's why".



http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMausero nl ine.pdf

..snip...

Ironically, to detail the American evidence for widespread defensive gun ownership's deterrent value is also to raise questions about how applicable that evidence would be even to the other nations that have widespread gun ownership but low violence. There are no data for foreign nations comparable to the American data just discussed. Without such data, we cannot know whether millions of Norwegians own handguns and carry them for protection, thereby deterring Norwegian criminals from committing violent crimes. Nor can we know whether guns are commonly kept for defense in German homes and stores, thus preventing German criminals from robbing them.

Moreover, if the deterrent effect of gun ownership accounts for low violence rates in high gun ownership nations other than the United States, one wonders why that deterrent effect would be amplified there. Even with the drop in United States murder rates that Lott and Mustard attribute to the massive increase in gun carry licensing, the United States murder rate is still eight times higher than Norway's-even though the U.S. has an almost 300% higher rate of gun ownership. That is consistent with the points made above. Murder rates are determined by socio‐economic and cultural factors. In the United States, those factors include that the number of civilian‐owned guns nearly equals the population- triple the ownership rate in even the highest European gun-ownership nations-and that vast numbers of guns are kept for personal defense. That is not a factor in other nations with comparatively high firearm ownership. High gun ownership may well be a factor in the recent drastic decline in American homicide. But even so, American homicide is driven by socio‐economic and cultural factors that keep it far higher than the comparable rate of homicide in most European nations.

In sum, though many nations with widespread gun ownership have much lower murder rates than nations that severely restrict gun ownership, it would be simplistic to assume that at all times and in all places widespread gun ownership depresses violence by deterring many criminals into nonconfrontation crime. There is evidence that it does so in the United States, where defensive gun ownership is a substantial socio‐cultural phenomenon. But the more plausible explanation for many nations having widespread gun ownership with low violence is that these nations never had high murder and violence rates and so never had occasion to enact severe anti‐gun laws. On the other hand, in nations that have experienced high and rising violent crime rates, the legislative reaction has generally been to enact increasingly severe antigun laws. This is futile, for reducing gun ownership by the law‐abiding citizenry-the only ones who obey gun laws-does not reduce violence or murder. The result is that high crime nations that ban guns to reduce crime end up having both high crime and stringent gun laws, while it appears that low crime nations that do not significantly restrict guns continue to have low violence rates.

simplicimus: I think you miss my point. We are already flooded with guns, both legally and otherwise obtained. Even if we banned all future sales, there's plenty out there already.

Or this guy uses his bombs.

Very popular as a terrorist weapon, those bombs.

coco ebert: the culture of guns

Human culture. The soupiest of correlations.

Are you sure about the rest of your data?simplicimus: Most other countries are relatively homogeneous regarding ethnicity and culture.

Meh @ ethnicity and homogeneity. Its such an easily deconstructed term. Funny, in the US (per US govt.) ethnicity is singularly represented by "hispanic," a notoriously split group.

Culture? Doesn't feel much different to me whether I am in Wisconsin, Georgia, or Colorado. France feels different. Its soupy and the discussion can get endless.

coco ebert: 1. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Its true. So does heart disease. If we're going to ban something statistically relevant - ban junk food.

coco ebert: 2. More people carrying guns would prevent such a tragedy

The theater had a strict policy against firearms inside. Chances are, they would have left them in their truck.

DamnYankees: I'm confused as to why this is news.

Its the source of panic du jour.



Shark!

simplicimus: vpb: simplicimus: basemetal: Good luck with that.

OK, so the barn door is open, the horses are all gone, and we want to discuss the best way to close the door.
It's simple, we have the armed forces, armed with psychiatrists, go door to door through the whole nation and determine who should or shouldn't have guns.
Tighter gun laws will only affect new purchases. It might increase the value of my current guns, but accomplish little else. Current purchase restrictions are adequate for people legally able to buy guns.

Yes, and it doesn't matter than they work almost everywhere else on earth because "why don't you move there, that's why".

I think you miss my point. We are already flooded with guns, both legally and otherwise obtained. Even if we banned all future sales, there's plenty out there already.

The KKK has already lynched a bunch of people, I don't know why we have to stop them. It won't bring those people back to life.

See how stupid that sounds? That's your logic.

coco ebert: Of course not. That's why I said "anecdotal experience". I'm a cultural anthropologist, so I think qualitative ethnographic data on people's relationship to guns would be a good pairing with more quantitatively inclined studies. I think understanding people's reasoning and motivations are important as well.

Side track. Are you practicing or a student? Have you taken a qualitative and quantitative methods course with the appropriate training in preparation, data collection, and data analysis?

simplicimus: GAT_00: simplicimus: vpb: simplicimus: basemetal: Good luck with that.

OK, so the barn door is open, the horses are all gone, and we want to discuss the best way to close the door.
It's simple, we have the armed forces, armed with psychiatrists, go door to door through the whole nation and determine who should or shouldn't have guns.
Tighter gun laws will only affect new purchases. It might increase the value of my current guns, but accomplish little else. Current purchase restrictions are adequate for people legally able to buy guns.

Yes, and it doesn't matter than they work almost everywhere else on earth because "why don't you move there, that's why".

I think you miss my point. We are already flooded with guns, both legally and otherwise obtained. Even if we banned all future sales, there's plenty out there already.

The KKK has already lynched a bunch of people, I don't know why we have to stop them. It won't bring those people back to life.

See how stupid that sounds? That's your logic.

Did you comprehend my post? What is your plan to stop gun violence?

How about we start by taking away the guns from crazy people and stop issuing them to them. After all, you gun nuts say crazy people are the problem, not the guns right? So you should support that.

coco ebert: I have an MA in political science so I took a methods course in quantitative and qualitative methods. I'm now doing a PhD in cultural anthro and my methods course have clearly been more qualitative, but with some quantitative mixed in. I do ethnography- so long-term qualitative work with some quantitative work mixed in. I guess I'm both a student and practicing!

Political Scientists have a penchant for trying to fit causation where it doesn't belong. Its really their collective kryptonite.

How is your previous training conflicting with the Po-Mo oriented cultural anthropology crowd?

simplicimus: GAT_00: simplicimus: GAT_00: simplicimus: vpb: simplicimus: basemetal: Good luck with that.

Did you comprehend my post? What is your plan to stop gun violence?

How about we start by taking away the guns from crazy people and stop issuing them to them. After all, you gun nuts say crazy people are the problem, not the guns right? So you should support that.

People previously diagnosed with psychiatric problems are currently not allowed to purchase guns, nor are felons (in most states).
How do you propose to take guns away from crazy people?

Well, that's clearly working well, given the recent rampages by totally sane people.

How about you prove fitness to own a gun? Seems logical.

simplicimus: coco ebert: Ah, let me add two more points I've seen repeatedly:

4. There are already so many guns, there's nothing we can do anything about it now so we might as well change nothing.

5. If we tighten any gun regulations then there will be a flood of people buying arms on the black market.

4. Change it all you want. Ban them outright. Won't change a thing.
5. There are already people buying guns on the black market.

I like this logic of "we can't fix everything, so let's fix nothing." Defeatism is good. Let's just acknowledge 20,000 people will die from guns every year and consider it acceptable. That's a sane way to view the world.

coco ebert: Ha! It's funny you say that. I found political science SO hellbent on proving causation and trying to be as much a science as possible that I had to get away. Also, my advisor looked at my MA thesis and said, "coco, you need to go into cultural anthropology, you won't get far in the rational choice-leaning poli sci field."

Rather than po-mo (it's somewhat of a po-po-mo moment now and there are a variety of schools of thought within anthro as it is), I like how anthro straddles both the humanities and the social sciences. I'm so happy I switched.

Are you a political scientist?

Ahh.. Political scientists. Sometimes, they are the easiest people to eviscerate through the causation issue.

Well, cultural anthropology can be quite deconstructionist and po-mo (fark po-po-mo, I'm a lumper). Archaeology or some Biological Anthropology is a much better example of straddling the two. Cultural Anthro can get quite lazy when it is making points that seemlessly flow with the dominant paradigm of the day. Run away from that.

This is the worst farking part. Whiny people going "Ohh, that's going to be hard. I don't wanna try if it isn't a quick fix."

You people are the reason we've fallen down. You're the goddamn problem. If you aren't going to even farking try, just sit down and shut up.

GAT_00: How about we start by taking away the guns from crazy people and stop issuing them to them. After all, you gun nuts say crazy people are the problem, not the guns right? So you should support that.

Already the case, and has been for like half a century minimum. People with diagnosed mental illnesses potentially involving violence are not legally allowed to purchase firearms. That's one of the things that the background checks are to verify, along with felonies and missing your child support, both of which bar you from purchasing firearms in the US.

Buying a gun for someone else who wouldn't pass the background check, by the way, is also a felony with basically the same penalties as illegal possession of a firearm itself-- some jail time, and if the weapon is used in a crime, you're typically charged as an accessory.

I'm not sure where the weird myths that the US is some sort of "free guns for everyone" state come from, our restrictions are actually fairly similar to most of the first world with the exception of looser regulation on handguns in cities as a result of Heller and Chicago. If you go to a rural area in northern England any given house probably has several shotguns and a rifle in the shed out back, it's not like even the outright draconian states deny citizens small arms entirely.

GAT_00: This is the worst farking part. Whiny people going "Ohh, that's going to be hard. I don't wanna try if it isn't a quick fix."

You people are the reason we've fallen down. You're the goddamn problem. If you aren't going to even farking try, just sit down and shut up.

Do you want a hug?

The lame-stream-drive-by-liberal-media-conspiracy!!!

Here is an email I just received:

-----------------------------------------------------

GUN HATERS RESPONSIBLE FOR
AURORA MASSACRE

Gun haters and legislators are trying to twist the Aurora massacre into an excuse for more Gun Control. But when the liberals squelch our Second Amendment Rights, they are creating victims and putting all our lives at risk.

FAX CONGRESS & THE STATES - TELL THEM NO NEW GUN CONTROL LAWS - WE WILL NOT BE VICTIMS!

As some of you know, I occasionally run a series of posts entitled "Stupid Liberal Hate Mail" which chronicles some of the ridiculous rants that reach my email box. This most recent one, from someone calling herself Connie Kaplan is too important not to share.

Connie writes:

"**** you & your blatant lies & disgusting that a woman would stoop so low to spew this ****. Its animals like you who are complicit in the killings of so many in Aurora Colorado. Shame on you and the NRA." - Connie Kaplan, Clermont, FL

(Note, because Ms. Kaplan's mother apparently did not wash her mouth out with soap as a child, I have edited come of her more choice words).

Sadly, Connie and her liberal friends are missing the obvious - IT IS THE GUN HATERS WHO CAUSED THE AURORA TRAGEDY.

My response to Ms. Kaplan explains why:

Dear Ms. Kaplan,

The Aurora shooter broke nearly every law you and your liberal gun hating friends created. Yet, had people like me or any other legal gun owner been allowed to exercise our second amendment rights, the "Batman Shooter" could have been stopped before he was able to massacre so many. It is you, madam, and your gun hating friends who are responsible for the deaths of so many. You are responsible because not only do you refuse to protect yourselves, you deny others the ability to defend ourselves. Shame on you for creating a situation where innocent people were literally defenseless ducks in a barrel waiting to be murdered. - Stephani Scruggs, President UIA

FAX CONGRESS & THE STATES - TELL THEM NO NEW GUN CONTROL LAWS - WE WILL NOT BE VICTIMS!

THE FACT IS GUNS SAVE LIVES. Contrast what happened in Aurora with a series of recent events:

Ocala, Florida, where a gang of armed teenagers barged into an internet café, brandishing guns and threatening to kill the occupants; 71 year old Samuel Williams knew what to do...he drew his legally authorized gun and wounded the robbers before they could kill anyone.

Or in Milwaukee, WI where a customer shot and wounded a man who tried to rob a grocery store at gun point.

Or in Texas, where a clerk shot the robber holding a gun to a co-worker's head.

When the bad guys show up, we need to be able to defend ourselves! There are thousands of examples that prove my point. Take Switzerland for example - they have one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, yet they also have one of the lowest murder rates. The Swiss know what liberals and politicians willfully ignore an armed society is a POLITE society.

FAX CONGRESS & THE STATES - TELL THEM GUN CONTROL CREATES VICTIMS

Sadly, the gun haters are trying to twist the Aurora massacre into an excuse for more Gun Control. But when the liberals squelch our Second Amendment Rights, they are creating victims and putting all our lives at risk.

I will NOT settle for victimhood and neither should you.

We need to send a clear message to Congress AND the States, that we will NOT allow the gun haters to take our ability to protect ourselves and our families.

FAX CONGRESS & THE STATES - TELL THEM GUN CONTROL CREATES VICTIMS

Together, we can preserve the Constitutional rights our Founding Fathers intended our people to have forever. Together we can save America!

For more information about Unite In Action go to www.UniteInAction.org

Thank you. I know I can count on you.


In Liberty,

Stephani Scruggs
President, Unite In Action, Inc.

About Stephani Scruggs:
Stephani Scruggs serves as the National Co-Chair of The 912 Project as well as President of Unite In Action, Inc. As a writer, speaker and analyst, Stephani focuses on the principles of liberty. She has made numerous television and radio appearances including the Glenn Beck Show to discuss the importance of the American Constitution and the rights it grants its citizens.


Unite In Action, Inc. is a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization, managed by an all-volunteer staff,
which focuses on nonpartisan civic education and advocacy regarding important national issues.
For more information, please go to www.UniteInAction.org or write us at PO Box 398, Nashville TN 37011-0398.

MRC, Media Research Center, Brent Bozo, automatic fail, automatic dismissal of any argument/research it may present.

Thank you but no.

Party Boy: GAT_00: This is the worst farking part. Whiny people going "Ohh, that's going to be hard. I don't wanna try if it isn't a quick fix."

You people are the reason we've fallen down. You're the goddamn problem. If you aren't going to even farking try, just sit down and shut up.

Do you want a hug?

I'm sick of being rejected out of hand by gun nuts unless I've already designed all the regulations myself and thought through every single possibility.