Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

No, many gun owners are "hesitant to put their names on a 'gun registration' list" because so many of you so utterly are convinced by the NRA that the government is gonna come and take your guns.

Please don't presume to speak for "many gun owners" or me. There's precedence that the government wants to outlaw firearms. It's not like these are baseless concerns.

Sure, there's precedence that the government wants to outlaw firearms. But they're not going around collecting the guns now are they?

And that's exactly what the NRA and its paid lackeys in the Republican party keep getting you lot stirred up into thinking.

The NRA is just as bad as the ATF. They're both organizations with an agenda to push and simpletons wrapped around their fingers.

Please, show me some instances of the NRA infringing upon the rights or other people and circumventing the courts to obtain sales records for legal purchases.

I can't show that. You are aware of that. They're not a government agency and as such cannot "infringe upon the rights of other people" in the same way that is being described in this story--yet they still retain a measure of power that makes the ATF look like small potatoes.

 Kanluwen wrote:
yet they still retain a measure of power that makes the ATF look like small potatoes.

Lol, no. A private lobbying group is never going to have even close to the same level of power as a government organization with the power to kick down your door, hold you at gunpoint, and charge you with invented "crimes" that can put you in prison for the rest of your life.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
There is no "paperwork" to be done. In the US you are legally allowed to manufacture your own firearms for personal use without any further registration, documentation or even a serial number.

Details, details. If you don't have the paperwork enjoy your ATF raid.

This "argument" is fundamentally nonsense. It's akin to arguing that the IRS should raid you if you don't save the receipt from a leash you bought at petco.

 Ouze wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
There is no "paperwork" to be done. In the US you are legally allowed to manufacture your own firearms for personal use without any further registration, documentation or even a serial number.

Details, details. If you don't have the paperwork enjoy your ATF raid.

This "argument" is fundamentally nonsense. It's akin to arguing that the IRS should raid you if you don't save the receipt from a leash you bought at petco.

I think he's just trolling right now.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
yet they still retain a measure of power that makes the ATF look like small potatoes.

Lol, no. A private lobbying group is never going to have even close to the same level of power as a government organization with the power to kick down your door, hold you at gunpoint, and charge you with invented "crimes" that can put you in prison for the rest of your life.

The fact that the NRA has been instrumental in defeating almost every attempted firearms control measure within the past 30 years begs to differ.

The ATF is a toothless agency that has to work with local police departments to such an extent that it is a joke.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The fact that the NRA has been instrumental in defeating almost every attempted firearms control measure within the past 30 years begs to differ.

The ATF is a toothless agency that has to work with local police departments to such an extent that it is a joke.

No gak. I don't remember the timeframe - maybe early 80's? There was serious discussion of actually disbanding the ATF. When it looked like those duties would be rolled into the infinitely-more-competent Secret Service, suddenly the NRA started lobbying in favor of the jackbooted ATF thugs they had spend years decrying. Shameless.

That being said, I also would see the ATF disbanded. There is nothing in their purview that doesn't already fit under the auspices of the FBI.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The fact that the NRA has been instrumental in defeating almost every attempted firearms control measure within the past 30 years begs to differ.

.

The statistics concerning how 'successful' the Clinton "assault weapons" ban and the fact that it was allowed to expire do that better than the NRA ever could.

The 1997 study said its analysis “failed to produce evidence of a post-ban reduction in the average number of gunshot wounds per case or in the proportion of cases involving multiple wounds.” But that’s not the same as saying the ban had “no impact.” The authors noted that the study was “constrained” to findings of short-term effects, “which are not necessarily a reliable guide to long-term effects.”

And most fundamentally, the authors wrote, “because the banned guns and magazines were never used in more than a fraction of all gun murders, even the maximum theoretically achievable preventive effect of the ban on gun murders is almost certainly too small to detect statistically with only one year of post-ban crime data.” The two later major studies of the ban included more years of analysis and concluded with an “updated assessment” that was published in 2004.

The recent Harvard study that found:

“If more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death, areas within nations with higher gun ownership should in general have more murders than those with less gun ownership in a similar area. But, in fact, the reverse pattern prevails,”

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And then, there's of course Fast and Furious, complete with attempted suppression of a book to 'keep morale up.'

 cincydooley wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The fact that the NRA has been instrumental in defeating almost every attempted firearms control measure within the past 30 years begs to differ.

.

The statistics concerning how 'successful' the Clinton "assault weapons" ban and the fact that it was allowed to expire do that better than the NRA ever could.

The 1997 study said its analysis “failed to produce evidence of a post-ban reduction in the average number of gunshot wounds per case or in the proportion of cases involving multiple wounds.” But that’s not the same as saying the ban had “no impact.” The authors noted that the study was “constrained” to findings of short-term effects, “which are not necessarily a reliable guide to long-term effects.”

And most fundamentally, the authors wrote, “because the banned guns and magazines were never used in more than a fraction of all gun murders, even the maximum theoretically achievable preventive effect of the ban on gun murders is almost certainly too small to detect statistically with only one year of post-ban crime data.” The two later major studies of the ban included more years of analysis and concluded with an “updated assessment” that was published in 2004.

The recent Harvard study that found:

“If more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death, areas within nations with higher gun ownership should in general have more murders than those with less gun ownership in a similar area. But, in fact, the reverse pattern prevails,”

The study you're referring to is published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, a student run publication "devoted to conservative and libertarian legal scholarship".
Don B. Kates, one of the two authors of the study you referred to, is author of such books as "Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out".


Incidentally both studies you refer to were done by Kates and Mauser.

Sounds like a bunch of d-bags with badges.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The fact that the NRA has been instrumental in defeating almost every attempted firearms control measure within the past 30 years begs to differ.

.

The statistics concerning how 'successful' the Clinton "assault weapons" ban and the fact that it was allowed to expire do that better than the NRA ever could.

The 1997 study said its analysis “failed to produce evidence of a post-ban reduction in the average number of gunshot wounds per case or in the proportion of cases involving multiple wounds.” But that’s not the same as saying the ban had “no impact.” The authors noted that the study was “constrained” to findings of short-term effects, “which are not necessarily a reliable guide to long-term effects.”

And most fundamentally, the authors wrote, “because the banned guns and magazines were never used in more than a fraction of all gun murders, even the maximum theoretically achievable preventive effect of the ban on gun murders is almost certainly too small to detect statistically with only one year of post-ban crime data.” The two later major studies of the ban included more years of analysis and concluded with an “updated assessment” that was published in 2004.

The recent Harvard study that found:

“If more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death, areas within nations with higher gun ownership should in general have more murders than those with less gun ownership in a similar area. But, in fact, the reverse pattern prevails,”

The study you're referring to is published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, a student run publication "devoted to conservative and libertarian legal scholarship".
Don B. Kates, one of the two authors of the study you referred to, is author of such books as "Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out".


Incidentally both studies you refer to were done by Kates and Mauser.

So... conservatives and libertarian are now lying liars. Got it.

 Ouze wrote:
This "argument" is fundamentally nonsense. It's akin to arguing that the IRS should raid you if you don't save the receipt from a leash you bought at petco.

Apparently you missed the obvious sarcasm? I'm criticizing the ATF for their position that they can invent any random rules they like, regardless of what the actual laws say, and then threaten you with raids and criminal charges if you don't follow them.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
This "argument" is fundamentally nonsense. It's akin to arguing that the IRS should raid you if you don't save the receipt from a leash you bought at petco.

Apparently you missed the obvious sarcasm? I'm criticizing the ATF for their position that they can invent any random rules they like, regardless of what the actual laws say, and then threaten you with raids and criminal charges if you don't follow them.

Looks like I did, yes.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The fact that the NRA has been instrumental in defeating almost every attempted firearms control measure within the past 30 years begs to differ.

.

The statistics concerning how 'successful' the Clinton "assault weapons" ban and the fact that it was allowed to expire do that better than the NRA ever could.

The 1997 study said its analysis “failed to produce evidence of a post-ban reduction in the average number of gunshot wounds per case or in the proportion of cases involving multiple wounds.” But that’s not the same as saying the ban had “no impact.” The authors noted that the study was “constrained” to findings of short-term effects, “which are not necessarily a reliable guide to long-term effects.”

And most fundamentally, the authors wrote, “because the banned guns and magazines were never used in more than a fraction of all gun murders, even the maximum theoretically achievable preventive effect of the ban on gun murders is almost certainly too small to detect statistically with only one year of post-ban crime data.” The two later major studies of the ban included more years of analysis and concluded with an “updated assessment” that was published in 2004.

The recent Harvard study that found:

“If more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death, areas within nations with higher gun ownership should in general have more murders than those with less gun ownership in a similar area. But, in fact, the reverse pattern prevails,”

The study you're referring to is published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, a student run publication "devoted to conservative and libertarian legal scholarship".
Don B. Kates, one of the two authors of the study you referred to, is author of such books as "Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out".


Incidentally both studies you refer to were done by Kates and Mauser.

I see you have studied Liberal Arguments 101: Ignore substance and attack the author.

 whembly wrote:

So... conservatives and libertarian are now lying liars. Got it.

How's that internship at Fox News going for you? You clearly have the misquoting and leaping to assumptions down pat.

"Conservative and libertarian legal scholarship" is not the same thing as Conservatives and Libertarians. Nor is it unheard of for academics to have political agendas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SickSix wrote:

I see you have studied Liberal Arguments 101: Ignore substance and attack the author.

And I see you have studied hypocrisy 101.

Against my better judgement

 Kanluwen wrote:
No, many gun owners are "hesitant to put their names on a 'gun registration' list" because so many of you so utterly are convinced by the NRA that the government is gonna come and take your guns.

You mean like the ATF deliberately mis-interpreting their own rules, demanding a list of people who have bought an item that is legally not a firearm (and therefore acting outside their legal remit), then carrying out a raid on the company with the list?

I can't imagine why that would make people concerned....

Seriously Kan.

Pot Kettle bro XD

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

So... conservatives and libertarian are now lying liars. Got it.

How's that internship at Fox News going for you? You clearly have the misquoting and leaping to assumptions down pat.

Funny you say that since I don't watch Fox News.*
(*If I had time, I'd watch Megyn Kelly... whoa momma!)

"Conservative and libertarian legal scholarship" is not the same thing as Conservatives and Libertarians. Nor is it unheard of for academics to have political agendas.

Uh huh... so, you still attacking the author? Under what basis then?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Against my better judgement

 Kanluwen wrote:
No, many gun owners are "hesitant to put their names on a 'gun registration' list" because so many of you so utterly are convinced by the NRA that the government is gonna come and take your guns.

You mean like the ATF deliberately mis-interpreting their own rules, demanding a list of people who have bought an item that is legally not a firearm (and therefore acting outside their legal remit), then carrying out a raid on the company with the list?

I can't imagine why that would make people concerned....

The funniest thing about the receivers is that you literally need about 15-20 additional parts to even make thing a functional rifle.

I showed a photo of a receiver to my wife and asked if she thought it should be illegal to own.

She had no idea what it was.

It's not about the parts needed. They aren't even fully machined. You would need a CNC machine to even get to the point of installing the parts you are referring to.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I read about this yesterday, and it infuriated me, particularly because a California judge upheld the restraining order and the ATF basically said, "naw, feth you, we're coming anyway. We got our own judge to overturn it."

Gross abuse of power that really highlights why many gun owners are hesitant to put their names on a 'gun registration' list like many people have suggested we do (and which, in uncorrupted principle, I'm not that opposed to).

No, many gun owners are "hesitant to put their names on a 'gun registration' list" because so many of you so utterly are convinced by the NRA that the government is gonna come and take your guns.

I'm sure the NRA (with whom I just renewed my membership) will have something to say by the end of the week.

The NRA is just as bad as the ATF. They're both organizations with an agenda to push and simpletons wrapped around their fingers.

Convinced by the NRA? How about convinced by what's going on in CT? Where that's exactly what they're planning to do? It's not a paranoid delusion, it's what's going on currently. Get a clue.

The only people who think it's "going on currently" are the people who panic buy tons of ammo.

 SickSix wrote:
It's not about the parts needed. They aren't even fully machined. You would need a CNC machine to even get to the point of installing the parts you are referring to.

Haha, gak, I forgot these ones weren't even finished. Great point.

PILE ON!

 Kanluwen wrote:
The only people who think it's "going on currently" are the people who panic buy tons of ammo.

Do you not have any idea what's going on in CT? Registration or confiscation are the choices.

 whembly wrote:
Uh huh... so, you still attacking the author? Under what basis then?

It's Kan. The basis is that they are not Democrats

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Uh huh... so, you still attacking the author? Under what basis then?

It's Kan. The basis is that they are not Democrats

The basis is that they are no different than the people on the Democrat side who cite things like Sandy Hook as being the reason for banning all the guns. Both sides have an agenda and there are scholars who present findings that can be used one way or the other.

So kindly knock off the assumption that I'm simply "attacking the author". It's not a peer review journal that this research was published in, it was a student run publication.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Uh huh... so, you still attacking the author? Under what basis then?

It's Kan. The basis is that they are not Democrats

And the fact that there was a CDC report that was commissioned by Prez Obama on this.

It didn't fit the narrative,so the administration buried it.

 whembly wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Uh huh... so, you still attacking the author? Under what basis then?

It's Kan. The basis is that they are not Democrats

And the fact that there was a CDC report that was commissioned by Prez Obama on this.

It didn't fit the narrative,so the administration buried it.

Wait, what? I probably missed it but where does is say that?

Pretty good summary from a Kan approve (read: left leaning) source:

Slate Gun Findings Article

 Kanluwen wrote:
Sure, there's precedence that the government wants to outlaw firearms. But they're not going around collecting the guns now are they?

That's actually quite true.

In Connecticut, for example, the government doesn't go around collecting guns. They make you bring the guns to them. It's less work for them, you see.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Uh huh... so, you still attacking the author? Under what basis then?

It's Kan. The basis is that they are not Democrats

And the fact that there was a CDC report that was commissioned by Prez Obama on this.

It didn't fit the narrative,so the administration buried it.

Wait, what? I probably missed it but where does is say that?

Here's the actual study:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1
It's actually compiled by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP), via an EO by Obama.

Key points:
-Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker
-Defensive uses of guns are common
-Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining
-“Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results
-Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime
-Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime
-The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides
-It did find that “The U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.” However, there are numerous articles pointing out this interesting fact: If figures are excluded from such anti-gun bastions as Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington, D.C., “The homicide rate in the United States would be in line with any other country.” Although... LA and MS still exhibit high firearm homicides. To me, that's a *mixed* bag result as well.