Guns?

[aciel]

I'd love to get some feedback on this from the pro-Heller folks who read:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=1085

Please comment?

Comments

Let's see...

[3fgburner]

1. Recently the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment supports an individual right to own gun, with reasonable restrictions. With this in mind, do you support or oppose the passage of laws placing reasonable restrictions on guns?

Most Americans don't know what restrictions there are, already. Most non-gun people I know aren't aware of NICS checks, the Youth Handgun Safety Act, and whatnot. They also aren't aware that possession of a firearm by disqualified persons is a Federal felony punishable by beaucoup prison time. They also aren't aware that if prosecutors didn't plea-bargain gun charges, most repeat offenders would be in jail until their hair and teeth fell out. Incidentally, it's highly probable that the questions were phrased in such a way as to yield the answers the Brady Bunch wanted.

2. Supporting:
Criminal background checks for all gun sales Most people aren't aware that all sales by dealers have background checks, INCLUDING ones at gun shows. What currently doesn't get checked, is private sales. This is

Re: Let's see...

[aciel]

Okay, rewind. You say, "...it's highly probable that the questions were phrased in such a way..." and what I'd really like to see is evidence. Can you find the questions you have problems with, please?

So I respect that you won't sell your guns to a questionable person, but that doesn't mean the rule applies to gun owners. Just because you're a good responsible gun owner does not make it any likelier that the next guy over is as well.

Re #2: My concern is straw purchases: someone will buy a gun and then privately sell it to someone else. Yes, it may be illegal, as you've said; but it's very hard to prove the person "knowingly" made the sale illegally.

I agree completely that you shouldn't have to pay six times as much. Background checks should be fully subsidized by the government that requires them.

Continued from last comment

[3fgburner]

Registration of gun sales and licensing of gun owners Again, people answering "yes" generally aren't aware that registration (a) is of no use in solving crimes; and (b) has lead to confiscation. The problem with licensing is the same as that with "literacy tests" for black voters during the Jim Crow Era. Black guy goes to vote. Sheriff's deputy hands him the local paper. Black guy reads a bunch of it. Deputy hands him a copy of Shakespeare. Black guy reads it. Deputy hands the black guy a Chinese newspaper. Black guy says

Re: Continued from last comment

[aciel]

If BC is doing a bad job of defining assault weapon, you're doing a poor job of justifying it to me. Put yourself in my shoes and explain to me why Brady would want to ban "assault rifles," but not, say, shotguns. There has to be a reason, or else they wouldn't spend money on it.

You seem intent upon arguing a lot of these things with me, but I didn't ask, "Why is the public stupid?" or "Why are these things the public wants wrong-headed?" I guess I'm more interested in knowing whether you think gun owners just didn't show up to vote, or refused exit polls, or what.

I'll also point out that it's very difficult for anyone to make a career of studying gun violence. Anytime someone publishes a study critical of guns, he or she gets smeared by press release after press release.

Re: Continued from last comment

[3fgburner]

The initial point of the "assault weapon" scam, was to get momentum to ban something. BC, VPC, et alia, were looking in the 1980s to ban handguns. That was a non-starter. Then, Josh Sugarmann, now of VPC, concocted the "assault weapon" scam around 1988. By demonizing a bunch of guns simply because they looked scary, the gun-control movement persuaded Congress to enact the 1994 ban

Re: Continued from last comment

[aciel]

This is much better, thank you so much! What a great reply.

And yes, I wanted to see the questions too. I'll ask about it.

My main concern with looking to science to answer questions is that science has a lot of trouble when put in the middle of politics. Politicians and lobbyists don't understand/care enough about what scientists do, so they make crazy rules and laws, or attempt to accuse the scientists of bias. I saw this just the other day when I testified on evolution at the Texas State Board of Education meeting.

And in fact, there's evidence of it happening w.r.t. guns as well. The CDC used to do research and firearms-related injuries, as I'm sure you know, but the NRA and a few people in Congress essentially ended up alleging that the entire field of public health was biased against guns.

[kle]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4

[aciel]

Come on, Kent, you can do better than that. I didn't ask about polls in general, I asked about THIS poll.

In general, I don't appreciate answers that are of the format http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com.

You should know better than to think I don't know about survey bias in general.

[frito_kal]

Unrelated to your post, but I saw this http://www.amazon.com/000-Gluten-Free-Recipes-Carol-Fenster/dp/0470067802 and thought of you, since you've mentioned having celiac and having to avoid gluten before.

[annanaka]

I'm only commenting because I'm too lazy to go find your e-mail address. Are you coming home for Christmas? If yes, when? If between Dec. 19 and Jan. 5, we must hang out. I miss you. Make plans, plz. <3