A little reality check poll here....

[etgryphon]

There should be NO restrictions on ownership or carrying of firearms concealed or otherwise for law abiding citizens. Period.

Use of the firearm should be regulated. i.e. You can't shoot the firearm in an unsafe manner or use the firearm in a crime etc. Period.

The whole reason that this is an issue is that it is in the Constitution. Just like the ACLU fights for the rights in the First Amendment. Pragmatically, Gun Control on limiting possession and carrying has been ineffective as research has shown. The only laws that have helped are stiffer penalties for gun misuse.

So there are two reasons why it is impractical and harmful to society in general to have gun control as it pertains to ownership and carrying of law abiding citizens.

-Gryph

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]


If item b is "guns", find me the study where it has "been shown in research to save from injury and\or death 400,000 - 2.5 million times per year. "


I can find plenty of studies that show otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is a page with lists of research links


So you can find me research that shows what exactly?

I'm really not trying to be a jerk, I just don't understand what you can find to the contrary?

Even if we take the low end of the estimation. 400,000 that is still more than 10 times greater than the deaths that it causes and the majority of these death were causes by felons with illegally obtained guns.

Who's kiko?

-Gryph

[Jedster]

I said:

[ QUOTE ]
I still don't understand why you think government should have more power to restrict car usage than gun usage other than you think it's a constitutional issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said:

[ QUOTE ]
Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that's a very good explanation. To be fair, you also said that all gun control is ineffective, but you didn't supply an argument other than referencing vague "research". I am sure there is research that has shown that; the question is, was it objective, scientific research, or gun lobby research.

I am in favor of allowing relatively unfettered gun ownership. I just also support restrictions on the ability of gun owners to, for example, carry guns in holsters at the super market, or carry concealed guns into bars during the Super Bowl, or (and this hits home) restricting the ability of gun owners to bring guns into poker rooms. I think at a minimum if such a practice is allowed, licensing is a must.

Why do you disagree?

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think that's a very good explanation. To be fair, you also said that all gun control is ineffective, but you didn't supply an argument other than referencing vague "research". I am sure there is research that has shown that; the question is, was it objective, scientific research, or gun lobby research.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well if that is all you got from my post then I wasn't clear. The research is from The Center for Disease Control or if you will the FEDERAL government research was funded and and began under the Clinton Administration to prove the effectiveness of the "Assualt Weapons Ban" and other gun control measures.

[ QUOTE ]

I am in favor of allowing relatively unfettered gun ownership.


[/ QUOTE ]

Good.
[ QUOTE ]

I just also support restrictions on the ability of gun owners to, for example, carry guns in holsters at the super market, or carry concealed guns into bars during the Super Bowl, or (and this hits home) restricting the ability of gun owners to bring guns into poker rooms. I think at a minimum if such a practice is allowed, licensing is a must.


[/ QUOTE ]

So you think that crimes don't happen at supermarket\bar\poker rooms? Crime happens everywhere. Again you have nothing to fear from a law abiding citizen who want to protect themselves.

It is just illegal to use a firearm while intoxicated as it is to drive a car. We don't make people walk to bars or take a cab to them.

[ QUOTE ]

Why do you disagree?


[/ QUOTE ]

On some points, Yes. On others, No. I think there should be unrestricted purchasing and carrying of a firearm. I wouldn't mind having a registration process to buy a gun as long as their was no way to confiscate\ban firearms of any kind.

-Gryph

[Jedster]

[ QUOTE ]
So you think that crimes don't happen at supermarket\bar\poker rooms? Crime happens everywhere. Again you have nothing to fear from a law abiding citizen who want to protect themselves.

It is just illegal to use a firearm while intoxicated as it is to drive a car. We don't make people walk to bars or take a cab to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just don't trust human nature as much as you do. You seem to trust people to walk into a bar with a loaded pistol holstered next to them. You seem to trust that no person in that bar will use the pistol for any reason other than self-defense. I assume that from time to time either the person who brought it in or someone who sees the holstered weapon will use it. Moreover, I assume that rational people will see that since more and more individuals have holstered weapons that they should get one too because you can never trust your neighbor. Pretty soon I think most if not all people going to bars would be carrying, and I definitely don't think that would be safe.

Would you play at a poker game where half the players (unkown to you) had pistols at their side? I assume you would, but I think most people would say that there is too much risk in that situation for too little reward.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't trust human nature as much as you do. You seem to trust people to walk into a bar with a loaded pistol holstered next to them. You seem to trust that no person in that bar will use the pistol for any reason other than self-defense. I assume that from time to time either the person who brought it in or someone who sees the holstered weapon will use it. Moreover, I assume that rational people will see that since more and more individuals have holstered weapons that they should get one too because you can never trust your neighbor. Pretty soon I think most if not all people going to bars would be carrying, and I definitely don't think that would be safe.

Would you play at a poker game where half the players (unkown to you) had pistols at their side? I assume you would, but I think most people would say that there is too much risk in that situation for too little reward.


[/ QUOTE ]

I see your point, but don't think it has to be an absolutley either/or thing, in the sense that bars and poker rooms could institute a "No Guns Allowed" policy if they so desired, being private businesses. Likewise, the host of a home or club poker game could have a rule against guns at the game.

By the way, I've played in poker games where there were guns (unbeknownst to me in the following incident), and at one game a guy grew irate at another player, whipped out a pistol, and pointed it at him across the table for several minutes whilst telling him off in a very loud voice. His face was beet red. The host finally managed to get the guy to put away the gun, and the game resumed for the rest of the evening. However I never saw that guy at the game again, so I suppose he wasn't invited back.

[Jedster]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just don't trust human nature as much as you do. You seem to trust people to walk into a bar with a loaded pistol holstered next to them. You seem to trust that no person in that bar will use the pistol for any reason other than self-defense. I assume that from time to time either the person who brought it in or someone who sees the holstered weapon will use it. Moreover, I assume that rational people will see that since more and more individuals have holstered weapons that they should get one too because you can never trust your neighbor. Pretty soon I think most if not all people going to bars would be carrying, and I definitely don't think that would be safe.

Would you play at a poker game where half the players (unkown to you) had pistols at their side? I assume you would, but I think most people would say that there is too much risk in that situation for too little reward.


[/ QUOTE ]

I see your point, but don't think it has to be an absolutley either/or thing, in the sense that bars and poker rooms could institute a "No Guns Allowed" policy if they so desired, being private businesses. Likewise, the host of a home or club poker game could have a rule against guns at the game.

By the way, I've played in poker games where there were guns (unbeknownst to me in the following incident), and at one game a guy grew irate at another player, whipped out a pistol, and pointed it at him across the table for several minutes whilst telling him off in a very loud voice. His face was beet red. The host finally managed to get the guy to put away the gun, and the game resumed for the rest of the evening. However I never saw that guy at the game again, so I suppose he wasn't invited back.

[/ QUOTE ]

It really is more of a public safety issue which is why I think the gov't is entitled set rules. It's similar to yelling fire in a theater. You have the right to free speech but not to yell fire in a crowded theater. And it's not up to the theater whether or not you have that right.

I think there are probably cases where having a concealed weapon is OK, but those should be specifically licensed by the relevant gov't. For example, you could be an off-duty cop or you could be a bodyguard for someone famous like Greg Raymer. Or perhaps you carry a gun because a pyschopath is stalking you, so you get a specific permit to do so. But as a general rule allowing guns all over the place isn't a great idea. But within your own home you're the boss.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


If item b is "guns", find me the study where it has "been shown in research to save from injury and\or death 400,000 - 2.5 million times per year. "


I can find plenty of studies that show otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is a page with lists of research links


So you can find me research that shows what exactly?

I'm really not trying to be a jerk, I just don't understand what you can find to the contrary?

Even if we take the low end of the estimation. 400,000 that is still more than 10 times greater than the deaths that it causes and the majority of these death were causes by felons with illegally obtained guns.

Who's kiko?

-Gryph

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate you posting this article. There are many pro-gun websites on the internet with links to this article and ones criticizing this NEJM handguns in the house piece.

study that is considered a landmark piece, though admittedly
has some significant flaws. Nevertheless, the conclusions that arise from that study are more likely to be statistically correct for the population studied (albeit there may be a large bit of sampling bias and the NEJM study might not be useful as a whole) Why? Because Dr. Kleck's study is ASKING his respondents whether or not they THINK they avoided serious injury/harm/loss of property or life. Thus the conclusions you reach only through the subjective interpretations of the respondents.

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


If item b is "guns", find me the study where it has "been shown in research to save from injury and\or death 400,000 - 2.5 million times per year. "


I can find plenty of studies that show otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is a page with lists of research links


So you can find me research that shows what exactly?

I'm really not trying to be a jerk, I just don't understand what you can find to the contrary?

Even if we take the low end of the estimation. 400,000 that is still more than 10 times greater than the deaths that it causes and the majority of these death were causes by felons with illegally obtained guns.

Who's kiko?

-Gryph

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate you posting this article. There are many pro-gun websites on the internet with links to this article and ones criticizing this NEJM handguns in the house piece.

study that is considered a landmark piece, though admittedly
has some significant flaws. Nevertheless, the conclusions that arise from that study are more likely to be statistically correct for the population studied (albeit there may be a large bit of sampling bias and the NEJM study might not be useful as a whole) Why? Because Dr. Kleck's study is ASKING his respondents whether or not they THINK they avoided serious injury/harm/loss of property or life. Thus the conclusions you reach only through the subjective interpretations of the respondents.

[/ QUOTE ]

True but lets look at it another way. There is an estimated 80 million households with guns. The current violent crime rate is 1 for every 47 people. So extrapolating the average crime rate to the household you get: ~1.7 million average violent crime incidents to the HOUSEHOLDS that own guns. So the range of 400,000 - 2.5 million does not seem out of place.

Even in the pragmatic realm. If 2.5 Million people feel SAFER, then who am I or who are you to say they shouldn't feel that way.

-Gryph