Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Lotus;977958]And, as I already said, that source has been discredited for two reasons.

1) The statistical model they used was flawed.
2) That source was created by people in the Australian gun lobby and hence had a predetermined outcome.

Find out more here:
[URL]http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback.pdf[/URL]

Or try this source from Harvard:
[URL]http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/files/bulletins_australia_spring_2011.pdf[/URL]

All reputable research indicates that the Aussie get-tough-on-guns approach worked.[/quote]

Counter to that is a far more thoroughly researched paper by [URL="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=lee+and+suardi+gun+buyback+debunk&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnrlott.tripod.com%2FAustralia_Gun_Buyback_EI.pdf&ei=oB3SUPWmG4y40QHv6YGICw&usg=AFQjCNENP-ugwHTYBghV5vhBfAkYlZINLA&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dmQ"]Lee and Suardi [/URL]which would suggest otherwise.

[I]Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical
and sensible policy that helps to placate the
public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests that
in the Australian context, the high expenditure
incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not
translated into any tangible reductions in
terms of firearm deaths.[/I]

It will take a more concerted effort by everyone to counter societal ills that foment this kind of act.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;977813]Because you didn't have a gun in the first place?[/quote]
because it seems to me that people are so self absorbed that they are worried about themselves, instead of maybe looking at the big picture

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=dmek25;977962]because it seems to me that people are so self absorbed that they are worried about themselves, instead of maybe looking at the big picture[/quote]

From the point of self defense, I am exceedingly self absorbed or as I prefer to look at it: Proactive.

I live in a remote, high crime area. There is no way that cops are getting to my location, should I need their help, in under 30 minutes [U][B]at best[/B][/U]. I choose to have a defensive solution to hand.

I could understand your stance if I was out brandishing my handgun and big pimpin'.

Tell me what you think the bigger picture is? Kumbayah around the firepit with marshmallows? Eff that!

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=hooskins;977832]Also I'm sick of the guns don't kill people argument. If you want to make a literal argument for the sake of justifying a position without facts I have one too; nukes don't kill people, countries pressing the red button do. Why should we even discuss reducing nuclear stock piles or preventing states from getting them? They are just deterrents!!

See how I took a ridiculous point, interpreted super literally, to counter? We can do this all day. Its stupid and pointless. Guns, especially [COLOR="Red"]high ammo [/COLOR]and [COLOR="Purple"]high fire rate[/COLOR], make killing people easier and really are [COLOR="SeaGreen"]not needed for practical purposes[/COLOR].[/quote]

[COLOR="Red"]What does that mean?[/COLOR]

[COLOR="SeaGreen"]If they are used for practical purposes, why should it matter, they are not harming anyone. You say they are not needed, do you really think you are qualified to speak for every law abiding citizen that owns one?[/COLOR]

[COLOR="Purple"]Please explain what legal guns you think have high fire rate.[/COLOR]

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;977961]Counter to that is a far more thoroughly researched paper by [URL="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=lee+and+suardi+gun+buyback+debunk&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnrlott.tripod.com%2FAustralia_Gun_Buyback_EI.pdf&ei=oB3SUPWmG4y40QHv6YGICw&usg=AFQjCNENP-ugwHTYBghV5vhBfAkYlZINLA&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dmQ"]Lee and Suardi [/URL]which would suggest otherwise.

[I]Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical
and sensible policy that helps to placate the
public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests that
in the Australian context, the high expenditure
incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not
translated into any tangible reductions in
terms of firearm deaths.[/I]

It will take a more concerted effort by everyone to counter societal ills that foment this kind of act.[/quote]

And as you know from the links that I provided, the study by Lee and Suardi has been refuted.

Any more discredited research that you guys would like to cite, since you are 0 for 2 so far in providing substantive research which supports your position?

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Lotus;977987]And as you know from the links that I provided, the study by Lee and Suardi has been refuted.

Any more discredited research that you guys would like to cite, since you are 0 for 2 so far in providing substantive research which supports your position?[/quote]

One problem with that whole thing.
This isnt Australia.
Different history, different culture, different etc etc etc

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

One of the more powerful statements I have heard:

[I][B]If only the first victim, Adam Lanza's mother, had been a gun owner, she could have stopped this before it started.[/B][/I]

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;977989]One problem with that whole thing.
This isnt Australia.
Different history, different culture, different etc etc etc[/quote]

The Harvard study that I provided discusses this exact issue.

We can learn from the Aussie experience and still create our own, uniquely American solution. The current American status quo clearly is not working.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Lotus;977987]And as you know from the links that I provided, the study by Lee and Suardi has been refuted.

Any more discredited research that you guys would like to cite, since you are 0 for 2 so far in providing substantive research which supports your position?[/quote]

There is no mention of Lee and/or Suardi or their work in the first link and the second makes some vague rebuttal that there may have been a lag between the implementation and the effect.

However it does make this comment you obviously overlooked:

[I]It does not appear that the Australian experience with gun buybacks is fully replicable in the United States. Levitt provides three reasons why gun buybacks in the United States have apparently been ineffective: (a) the buybacks are relatively small in scale (b) guns are surrendered voluntarily, and so are not like the ones used in crime; and (c) replacement guns are easy to obtain.[/I]

Once again you try to bluster or bluff your way through an argument you can't validate.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;977989]One problem with that whole thing.
This isnt Australia.
[B]Different history,[/B] different culture, different etc etc etc[/quote]


Actually they are all descendents of crimmnals.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=mredskins;977990]One of the more powerful statements I have heard:

[I][B]If only the first victim, Adam Lanza's mother, had been a gun owner, she could have stopped this before it started.[/B][/I][/quote]

It's certainly one of the more obtuse. If only she had been a better mother.....

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=mredskins;977996]Actually they are all descendents of crimmnals.[/quote]

Original Aussies, yes. There have been immigrants going there from the UK since the 1960's.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;977995]There is no mention of Lee and/or Suardi or their work in the first link and the second makes some vague rebuttal that there may have been a lag between the implementation and the effect.

However it does make this comment you obviously overlooked:

[I]It does not appear that the Australian experience with gun buybacks is fully replicable in the United States. Levitt provides three reasons why gun buybacks in the United States have apparently been ineffective: (a) the buybacks are relatively small in scale (b) guns are surrendered voluntarily, and so are not like the ones used in crime; and (c) replacement guns are easy to obtain.[/I]

Once again you try to bluster or bluff your way through an argument you can't validate.[/quote]

Thank you for actually reading a link.

The first link I posted does not mention Lee and Suardi but it directly rebuts points made in the Lee and Suardi paper. The second article actually critiques Lee and Suardi more deeply than you indicate. The second article, in nice academic prose, essentially calls Lee and Suardi fools. Thus both articles I posted refute Lee and Suardi.

But you are right - the Harvard article I posted says that the Aussie experience is not fully replicable in the USA. I hinted at this in a post above. But the article does point to positive gains from the Aussie experience which we Americans can learn from and, if not "fully" replicate, still enact to our betterment.

I'm not trying to "bluff" through anything here. I have provided sound research and a logical argument which can be used to help us find our way out of our current gun regulations, which clearly are not working.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=mredskins;977990]One of the more powerful statements I have heard:

[I][B]If only the first victim, Adam Lanza's mother, had been a gun owner, she could have stopped this before it started.[/B][/I][/quote]

Yeah, the whole situation in CT makes arguments of the type, "If only someone else had a gun...", even more ludicrous than they already were.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Lotus;978004]Yeah, the whole situation in CT makes arguments of the type, "If only someone else had a gun...", even more ludicrous than they already were.[/quote]

Would it make the statement easier to comprehend, do you think, if it were more accurately stated as "I[I]f only someone had a gun and were able to use it[/I]" instead of couching it in an obviously loaded (no pun intended) way?