Facts are facts. In properly designed study there is no room for interpretation. Besides many of the data I cited are fairly objectively measured. I still think that certain crimes are vastly underreported. Therefore any trending you may see in the data may be artifactual.
All too often on the research cited by both sides this is forgotten. Also, many of these studies, the majority on the pro-gun side in my opinion, forget about controls for quasi-experimental studies, or other confounding factors. There's a great book by Cook and Campbell that explains this stuff very well. some of the problems they cite for this sort of study fit are very problematic for firearms research, maturational effects, effects due to outside events, cohort effects, inadequate dismissal of alternative explanations and so on. All of these limit very much what we can conclude about a study. Anyhow as for arguing the facts, I prefer them over opinions most of the time. To give you an idea of the type of research I used to do (and still do on a consulting basis) you might want to read one of my papers on the topic: http://www.lyonsmorris.com/metaA/index.cfm. BTW the next version of this paper will have an accompanying app that will do calculations for this sort of research. While much emphasis has been placed on the second part of the amendment regarding the individual's right to bear arms, the first part regarding a well regulated militia is all too often ignored by such groups as the NRA etc. The Supreme Court has almost always interpreted the entire amendment as meaning that States have a right to defend themselves. It was one of the justifications used, for instance, by the South to separate during the civil war. have a good weekend all, I don't expect to be using a computer all weekend. Its recovery time. larry -- Larry C. Lyons ColdFusion/Web Developer Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer EBStor.com 8870 Rixlew Lane, Suite 204 Manassas, Virginia 20109-3795 tel: (703) 393-7930 fax: (703) 393-2659 Web: http://www.ebstor.com email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. -- > -----Original Message----- > From: Timothy Heald [mailto:healdt@;dsmail.state.gov] > Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 3:36 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: 40 Reasons For Gun Control > > > Larry I love your ability to argue facts. > > The facts inside the US are this. We have reinterpreted the > 2nd Amendment to mean something it was not intended to mean. > When you read the writings (author of the bill of rights) it > leaves no doubt that the right of the people to keep and bear > arms was intended to be just that, a right of the people that > SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. > > We ignore it and claim that it is a states right. Anyone who > reads Jefferson or Franklin or other famous founders of this > nation can plainly see what they intended. I do not see how > you can claim otherwise. > > This issue should have nothing to do with what is or isn't > wrong with guns. Until there is an amendment in place that > either overturns or limits the 2nd Amendment, than any law > regarding firearms is unconstitutional in my eyes. ANY LAW. > > Now I wouldn't be opposed to a very limited amendment in > order to stop personal possession of things like sarin or > C-4, but that's about it. > > > BTW where did we meet? I was going through some stuff the > other day and I found one of your cards. CF Fun? hmm weird. > > Any way. I know you think that possession of firearms should > be limited, and you make some very strong arguments as to > why, but don't you think that we need to follow the method > that was built into our constitution for changing the rights > of man? Do you really feel that simply legislating over the > top of what is supposed to be the foundation of our form of > government is the best route to take? > > Just wondering. > > Tim > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Larry Lyons [mailto:llyons@;ebstor.com] > Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 2:46 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: 40 Reasons For Gun Control > > > A chief problem with firearms is that they lend themselves > very easily to > impulsive acts. Moreover research have found that in > aggression research, > the presence of mere photos of antique firearms was > significantly related to > increased levels of aggressiveness, and a general lowering of > retaliation > thresholds (where the subject started returning the electric > shocks to the > yoked control). Its a relatively poor experimental design, with the > experiment's purpose being readily discernable, but it > suggests that people > are more likely to aggress sooner or retaliate faster / more > impulsively > just in the presence of firearms. > > As for that particular professor, so what. It does not invalidate the > theory, all it shows is that if you fake something, you will > eventually get > caught. > > larry > > -- > Larry C. Lyons > ColdFusion/Web Developer > Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer > EBStor.com > 8870 Rixlew Lane, Suite 204 > Manassas, Virginia 20109-3795 > tel: (703) 393-7930 > fax: (703) 393-2659 > Web: http://www.ebstor.com > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. > -- > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dan Haley [mailto:DanH@;telect.com] > > Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 2:01 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: RE: 40 Reasons For Gun Control > > > > > > It was satire with a message though. Some of us don't > agree with the > > message. > > > > I think one of the Kevin's posted a link to an article on a > > professor that > > got into trouble for his research methods. The book he was > > researching was > > about the "arming of america", and his point was that guns > weren't as > > prolific as everyone thinks they were. > > > > Maybe guns don't cause the crimes, but don't they do make it > > easier for it > > to turn violent? And I don't think the argument is that > > getting rid of guns > > gets rid of crime in general ... the argument is getting rid > > of guns reduces > > the 69 per 100,000 murder rate in DC. > > > > Dan > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: William Wheatley [mailto:bill@;ediets.com] > > Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:34 AM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: 40 Reasons For Gun Control > > > > > > lol its satire ;) Calm down don't get so fired up lol. > > > > But just to think for a second we had a shiznit load of guns > > back in the > > 40's- 70's hell even since the countries founding, show me > > some stats why > > we didn't have such a crime rate back then. Was it school > > that was better?? > > was it just a fact we have more degenerates in society today? > > Is it drugs? > > LOL I don't know what it is but I know what its not and its > > not guns that > > have caused all this crime we have now adays. Its the way > the world is > > today, some dude can get messed up on drugs and go crazy with > > or without > > guns. But hell I mean come on?? I used to back that getting > > rid of the guns > > things until I was reading that's what Hitler did register > > every fire arm to > > remove it from the public. Criminals will commit crime. I > > think our poor > > school system and rampant drug use might have some reason why > > we have people > > being criminals. Removing guns from everyone wont stop the > > criminals from > > being criminals. > > > > Hehe I think mikey needs to make a list cfargue@houseoffusion for us > > debating types. > > > > Could have Kevin Schmidt and Matt L. on one side and the rest > > of us on the > > other lol > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Larry Lyons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 12:59 PM > > Subject: RE: 40 Reasons For Gun Control > > > > > > > Answers Inline. > > > > > > larry > > > > > > -- > > > Larry C. Lyons > > > ColdFusion/Web Developer > > > Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer > > > EBStor.com > > > 8870 Rixlew Lane, Suite 204 > > > Manassas, Virginia 20109-3795 > > > tel: (703) 393-7930 > > > fax: (703) 393-2659 > > > Web: http://www.ebstor.com > > > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. > > > -- > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: William Wheatley [mailto:bill@;ediets.com] > > > > Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:43 AM > > > > To: CF-Community > > > > Subject: 40 Reasons For Gun Control > > > > > > > > > > > > 40 Reasons For Gun Control > > > > > > > > > > > > 40 Reasons For Gun Control > > > > 1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago > > > > cops need guns. > > > > > > > > 2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due > > > > to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of > > > > 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control. > > > > > > > > > It works when the surrounding juristidictions had similar > > gun control > > > legislation. When tracing is done, according to Justic > > Department stats, > > the > > > firearms seized in DC typically come from Virginia, North > > Carolina and > > other > > > states with very loose gun control laws. Its really easy to > > drive a few > > > hours down I-95 and buy firearms at a gunstore in a state > > with very loose > > > gun laws. You then drive back to DC and can sell the > > weapons at 3 or 4 > > times > > > your cost. > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control > > > > but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun > > > > control are "just statistics." > > > > > > Bad example, as someone with a lot of graduate stats > > courses under my > > belt, > > > you're going to have to give me some citations here. > > > > > > > > 4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which > > > > went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in > > > > violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991. > > > > > > An interesting claim, did you control for the effects of > a changing > > economy > > > or other conditions that can have a significant affect. > > Until you do so or > > > cite a body of peer reviewd research that supports your > > pioint, I think > > your > > > criticism is invalid. > > > > > > The remaining pieces of pro gun propaganistic tripe I'll > > refrain from > > > commenting. Its heated rhetoric, not concusions based on > > legit research > > and > > > data. > > > > > > > > > Consider the homicide rate of Canada. It isn't even one > > tenth that of the > > > US. The two country have similar economies, and cultures, > > are equally > > > diverse. One of the chief differences between the two > > countries is the > > very > > > strict gun control legislation in Canada. If gun control > > legislation did > > not > > > work, then why is Canada's homicide rate > > disproporationately smaller than > > > the US's. > > > > > > To quote from a recent Ministry of Justice Canada report: > > > -- > > > Firearms and Violent Crime > > > > > > Since 1975, the homicide and firearm homicide rates have > declined in > > Canada, > > > with no simple explanation for the observed decrease. > > Different strategies > > > are required to prevent homicides in the home as opposed to > > homicides in > > the > > > streets. The growing literature on the subject makes it > > clear that spousal > > > homicide is rarely a spontaneous single event, and is more > > generally the > > end > > > of a cycle of violence that takes place in the home. A better > > understanding > > > of how violence is seen to escalate may lead to more > > effective prevention > > > strategies. > > > > > > In 1996, of the 31,242 robberies reported in Canada, 21.3 > > percent involved > > a > > > firearm. While the frequency of robberies has increased > > over the last 20 > > > years, the percentage involving a firearm has decreased. > > Most robberies > > are > > > committed in large urban areas. Research on offenders' > > decision-making > > > processes, in relation to various kinds of robbery and > > assault incidents, > > is > > > still at a very early stage in Canada. > > > > > > Canada's experience with youth violence, especially firearm > > violence, is > > > significantly different from that of the United States. > > Research indicates > > > that differential access to firearms, especially handguns, > > by youth in the > > > two countries appears to be the main factor explaining the > > difference in > > the > > > levels of youth violence. More comprehensive comparative > > research may > > yield > > > important findings. > > > -- > > > http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/rs/rep/wd98-4a-e.html > > > > > > In 1995 there were two homicides by firearms in Winnipeg (see > > > http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/rs/rep/wd97-1a-e.html), > > Manitoba Canada, > > a > > > city in the middle of Canada. Its population is about > > 600,000 or so. Now > > > compare those fire arm related homicide rates to the > > nearest comparible > > city > > > in the US midwest: Minneapolis where in 1995 there were 97 > > firearm related > > > homicides (see > > http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/profile07.html). > > > > > > > > > An interesting side note, there is some indication, (I'll > > have to dig up > > the > > > article from the site) that there is a statically significant, but > > somewhat > > > small correlation between distance to the Canadian/US > > border and firearm > > > related homicide rates. In other words the closer you are > > to the border, > > > your chances of getting killed by a firearm are somewhat > increased. > > Probably > > > the correlation means that its easier getting a firearm in > > cities and > > towns > > > near the Canadian / US border than in places that are not > > near the border. > > > > > > Generally the data suggests that effective gun control > > legislation works. > > In > > > Canada it was done on a national level. This prevents most > > gun trafficing > > > between juristdictions. While not discussed, the data from > > the Canadian > > > Ministry of Justice site also showed a steady decrease > > since 1975 when > > > Canada's national gun control legislation was enacted. > > > > > > larry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go > > > > on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a > > > > gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid. > > > > > > > > 6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals. > > > > > > > > > > > 7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven > > > > spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry > and kill you. > > > > > > > > 8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman > > > > with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet. > > > > > > > > 9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up > > > > no defense -- give them what they want, or run" (Handgun > > > > Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People > > > > Do, 1981, p.125). > > > > > > > > 10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert > > > > advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent > > > > treatises on heart surgery. > > > > > > > > 11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer > > > > seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon > > > > for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive > > > > problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise. > > > > > > > > 12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the > > > > National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917. > > > > > > > > 13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on > > > > federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, > > > > buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal > > > > law, is a "state" militia. > > > > > > > > 14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to > > > > assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," > > > > "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed > > > > to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers > > > > not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, > > > > and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right > > > > of the people to keep and bear arm" refers to the state. > > > > > > > > 15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But > > > > we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, > > > > 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution. > > > > > > > > 16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! > > > > Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them. > > > > > > > > 17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they > > > > aren't "military weapons", but private citizens shouldn't > > > > have "assault rifles", because they are military weapons. > > > > > > > > 18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, finger > > > > printing, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily > > > > available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. > > > > In the 1940's, 1950's and1960's, anyone could buy guns at > > > > hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety > > > > stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no > > > > fingerprints, no government forms and there were no > > school shootings. > > > > > > > > 19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about > > > > kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's > > > > attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social > > > > activity. > > > > > > > > 20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to > > > > use them properly, and so simple to use that they make > > murder easy. > > > > > > > > 21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for > > > > the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an > > > > automobile that only has 20. > > > > > > > > 22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a > > > > woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun > > > > makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on > > their fears." > > > > > > > > 23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into > > > > slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is > > > > removed. > > > > > > > > 24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass > > > > killings at gun shows. > > > > > > > > 25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just > > > > like a majority of the population supported owning slaves. > > > > > > > > 26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered > > > > to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon." > > > > > > > > 27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws > > > > against guns, which most people will abide by because they > > > > can be trusted. > > > > > > > > 28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be > > > > questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the > > > > Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is > > > > not really protected by the Bill of Rights. > > > > > > > > 29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, > > > > computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies > > > > bare hands. > > > > > > > > 30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends > > > > certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, > > > > because it defends other parts of the Constitution. > > > > > > > > 31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is > > > > a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a > > > > movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is > > > > an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the > > > > UN arms control summit. > > > > > > > > 32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why > > > > they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do > > > > "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need > > > > less ammunition. > > > > > > > > 33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other > > > > inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have > > > > access to guns too. > > > > > > > > 34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over > > > > hand guns that private citizens can never hope to obtain. > > > > > > > > 35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection > > > > because the police are there to protect them even though the > > > > Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their > > > > protection. > > > > > > > > 36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal > > > > protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound > > > > administrators who work in a building filled with cops, > > need a gun. > > > > > > > > 37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill > > > > large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. > > You do not. > > > > > > > > 38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give > > > > Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the > > > > Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from > > > > Smith & Wesson, that's good. > > > > > > > > 39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a > > > > gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police > > > > officers with one on their duty weapon. > > > > > > > > 40. Handgun Control, Inc. says they want to "keep guns out of > > > > the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands. > > > > > > > > Bill Wheatley > > > > Senior Database Developer > > > > Macromedia Certified Advanced Coldfusion Developer > > > > EDIETS.COM > > > > 954.360.9022 X159 > > > > ICQ 417645 > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
