Another mass shooting...

[jakee 1,499]

jbscout2002

That is because drinking and driving laws are toothless and unenforceable, right?

Also murder laws are toothless and unenforceable because murder is illegal in all 50 states, but the law is not preventing murder from happening.

FARs are toothless and unenforceable because jump pilots continue to attempt aerobatics in planes full of skydivers leading to injuries and death.

If that's sarcasm, then you realise you're now arguimng for the otherside, right?

If that's not sarcasm, what planet are you living on?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,027]

jbscout2002

************A study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence.”

Another UNTRUTH from jbscout.

1. The article was published in 2007, it has NOT "just appeared".

2. The analysis of it that you posted was plagiarized from a 2007 ACRU article, and doesn't accurately describe the findings anyway.

3. It's not a Harvard study, it's just available for download from Harvard's servers. It's a spin piece written by two right wing pro-gun activists, neither of which ever went to or worked for Harvard.

Your cut-and-paste-fu is clearly not working too well.

If you need to plagiarize inaccurate articles in order to further your argument, then your argument clearly is not a very good one.

I'm citing my work just for you because you like to make accusations to discredit people, but absolutely everything you have said is completely without merrit and just pulled out of your ass.

Here's the proof. Scroll down to the third paragraph.

www.theacru.org/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

You PLAGIARIZED the article which is from 2007.

or did you PLAGIARIZE it from here?

www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=267085

Or maybe from here:

www.quora.com/Can-the-weak-gun-laws-in-the-US-be-a-reason-for-the-recent-spate-of-mindless-shootings-Or-has-it-got-more-to-do-with-the-nature-of-society-and-its-failure-as-a-whole-to-deal-with-issues-of-mental-health-proactively

The only person discrediting a plagiarist is the plagiarist, not the one who outs him.

Not plagiarism, quoting published info (yes, copy and paste) and showing exactly where I got it from. Not making it up, pulling it out of thin air, passing it off as my research, or like you, offering nothing but but saying nuh uh at every fact presented

Nope. The article you cut and pasted is NOT the one you referenced. You straight out plagiarized it from the ACRU web site, as I have shown. You made no reference to that site.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jbscout2002 1]

To your credit, I will slow myself down and pay closer attention to the publishing dates on whate I'm reading. I think it would actually be beneficial to my argument, as research over the last two decades has shown a steady decrease in crime trends, with violent crime currently being the lowest since 1981. Odd that crime has been decreasing while gun sales have sky rocketed and our media makes schools look like war zones.

[kallend 2,027]

jbscout2002

To your credit, I will slow myself down and pay closer attention to the publishing dates on whate I'm reading. I think it would actually be beneficial to my argument, as research over the last two decades has shown a steady decrease in crime trends, with violent crime currently being the lowest since 1981. Odd that crime has been decreasing while gun sales have sky rocketed and our media makes schools look like war zones.

The article you cited was Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694). The cut and paste PLAGIARISM job came from another article altogether. Did you even bother to read the original?

And even the original article is bogus. The authors, who are NOT related in any way to Harvard, were subsequently found to have used made-up data. Rather like John Lott/Mary Rosh did.

Your fact checking is lousy.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jbscout2002 1]

kallend

***To your credit, I will slow myself down and pay closer attention to the publishing dates on whate I'm reading. I think it would actually be beneficial to my argument, as research over the last two decades has shown a steady decrease in crime trends, with violent crime currently being the lowest since 1981. Odd that crime has been decreasing while gun sales have sky rocketed and our media makes schools look like war zones.

The article you cited was Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694). The cut and paste PLAGIARISM job came from another article altogether. Did you even bother to read the original?

And even the original article is bogus. The authors, who are NOT related in any way to Harvard, were subsequently found to have used made-up data. Rather like John Lott/Mary Rosh did.

Your fact checking is lousy.

Here. Forgot the link.

http://www.theacru.org/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

[jbscout2002 1]

yoink

***
Personal responsibility. I CHOOSE not to smoke and CHOOSE to own guns. I won't stand next to you while you smoke and you don't have to go to the range with me.

Problem solved

I think you're being deliberately obtuse. I can't believe you don't see a difference between guns and smoking.

How about this. An adult has a pack of cigarettes which they use legally. Their son steals a pack, takes it to school and uses it. Net effect? Zero.

Now replace the cigarettes with a pistol. Net effect - people shot.

The problem with guns is how good they are at their job. It doesn't take years of exposure to have an effect. Just a split second.

I'm not too worried about criminals with guns - as Dan stated earlier they do tend to shoot each other more than civilians, and I can teach my kids ways to stay safer. We don't mix in the same social circles by choice.

How do I teach my kid to stay safe in school when anyone else could easily bring a gun in? They HAVE to mix in the same circles.

This is a skewed view point. Flip side is, kid has no access to parents guns because they are properly secured in a safe. Infant is in a car seat every day while mom and dad smoke in the car with the windows up. Mom and dad choose to smoke. They've been doing it forever. Who cares. Infant has no choice. Frail lungs, lots of carcinogens going into a tiny body with an undeveloped immune system.

5 years later, at the cancer treatment center for children, mom and dad are watching the news in the waiting room when a report of a shooting comes on. The go out for a smoke break to talk about how disturbing it is that we don't make shooting people illegal.

[kallend 2,027]

jbscout2002

******To your credit, I will slow myself down and pay closer attention to the publishing dates on whate I'm reading. I think it would actually be beneficial to my argument, as research over the last two decades has shown a steady decrease in crime trends, with violent crime currently being the lowest since 1981. Odd that crime has been decreasing while gun sales have sky rocketed and our media makes schools look like war zones.

The article you cited was Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694). The cut and paste PLAGIARISM job came from another article altogether. Did you even bother to read the original?

And even the original article is bogus. The authors, who are NOT related in any way to Harvard, were subsequently found to have used made-up data. Rather like John Lott/Mary Rosh did.

Your fact checking is lousy.

Here. Forgot the link.

http://www.theacru.org/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

Ha ha. Too late for that damage control.

You plagiarized the article, then denied plagiarising it, then said the link was there when it wasn't, and not until I provided unrefutable proof did you finally admit that someone else wrote it.


And the original article is bunk too. Kates works for the Independent Institute, a so-called think tank where his colleagues include Fred Singer and Frederick Seitz . He is also one of the NRA's lawyers.

And Gary Mauser can't tell up from down.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Anvilbrother 0]

How was that plagiarism? He never attempted to pass the information off as his own he in his first sentence stated where it came from?

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[turtlespeed 221]

Anvilbrother

How was that plagiarism? He never attempted to pass the information off as his own he in his first sentence stated where it came from?

When john cannot dispute the content, he tries to discredit the poster.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[jbscout2002 1]

Maybe I don't have the right understanding of plagiarism. I read that article, copied it to show what I was reading....maybe because I forgot the link? But your rebuttal is that YOU claim the people who wrote it are idiots?

I can state that as well, gun control advocates are idiots. They demand more laws, but don't know what the existing laws are. They spend however many thousands of dollars and hundreds of man hours working up laws that ban items that don't exist, such as Hooknswoops case in CO.

They are concerned about having bayonet lugs on ARs? Who cares. Take them. I haven't even seen a bayonet in a military arms room in the last 10 years, let alone anyone paying the $150 for the M9 Dollar General quality bayonet for personal use.

You want common sense gun laws? First find some common sense. Then find an actual plan that is a means to an end. You can strip cosmetic features off of an AK 47 so it doesn't look as cool, but is now "compliant", but guess what genius, it still fires 7.62x39 as fast as you can squeeze the trigger. So what was common sense about that?

[jbscout2002 1]

I mean, seriously. NY was so proud of how restrictive their gun laws were. They and an assault weapons ban in effect. So with that, you must legally define the word "assault" weapon.

Thus, a semi automatic riffle able to accept a detachable magazine with 2 or more of the following cosmetic features: pistol grip, bayonet lug, flash suppressor, collapsible but stock, grenade launcher mount (wtf? whatever)

So I don't even know what a grenade launcher mount is. The M203 grenade launchers the military uses require no type of mounting lug or bracket. I'm not familiar with the AK variants that have a grenade launcher tho, so maybe.

So anyways, minute the grenade launcher mount, I have a couple AR 15s with all that scary stuff on it. I move to NY, so I take a few minutes to remove a few pieces and swap out but stocks, and bazinga, my scary military assault rifle is now a compliant sporting riffle. Still shoots the same bullets at the same speed, but now it is safer.

[jbscout2002 1]

Ban the so called "black riffles"? Some suggest specifically naming brands and models like the AR and AK series, as they are commonly used by militaries. Ok. Ruger ranch riffle. Semi auto, detachable magazine, shoots the same .223 cal or 5.56 mm round as the AR, and does it just as well and just as fast. Well, accuracy isn't as good on the ranch riffle, but many police departments use hem as a cheaper alternative to the AR.

[christelsabine 1]

jbscout2002

Ban the so called "black riffles"? Some suggest specifically naming brands and models like the AR and AK series, as they are commonly used by militaries. Ok. Ruger ranch riffle. Semi auto, detachable magazine, shoots the same .223 cal or 5.56 mm round as the AR, and does it just as well and just as fast. Well, accuracy isn't as good on the ranch riffle, but many police departments use hem as a cheaper alternative to the AR.

Sounds like you are starting a sales show ....

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[Anvilbrother 0]

This is the problem with handing over gun control to dems.
http://youtu.be/iJmFEv6BHM0

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[champu 1]

I think a "clear to buy" card, as we've discussed here in the past, would be an easy to implement and minimally intrusive measure. In states where you currently have to go to a dealer for all PPTs, it would actually be an improvement.

A pleasant side effect of implementing it would be that the gun control crowd wouldn't be able to lead off their list of suggestions with demanding universal background checks anymore, they'd have to jump right in with all the less sensible things they want to do and I think fewer moderate people would fall for it.

I would also like to point out that I don't think implementing this will do much of anything to prevent violence. At this point it's just a small, worthwhile price to pay to get people to shut the hell up about it.

As far as other types of laws, I don't have much to add to this: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4482149#4482149

[Anvilbrother 0]

They kind of did something that for us here. Your CCW permit is your free to buy card now.

Quote

The passage of Act 221 of the 2014 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature amends La. R.S. 40:1379.3 to require the Department of Public Safety to conduct a check on every Concealed Handgun Permit applicant through the National Instant Background Check System (NICS) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Pursuant to Act 221 of the 2014 Legislative Session, approval from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has been obtained and possession of a current and valid 5-year Louisiana Concealed Handgun Permit, issued on or after March 9, 2015 shall constitute sufficient evidence of the background check required pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(t) for the purchase of a firearm, and may be used in lieu of a NICS check. However, as stated in Act 221, possession of a Concealed Handgun Permit that has a Lifetime designation shall not constitute sufficient evidence of the background check pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(t).

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[jbscout2002 1]

christelsabine

***Ban the so called "black riffles"? Some suggest specifically naming brands and models like the AR and AK series, as they are commonly used by militaries. Ok. Ruger ranch riffle. Semi auto, detachable magazine, shoots the same .223 cal or 5.56 mm round as the AR, and does it just as well and just as fast. Well, accuracy isn't as good on the ranch riffle, but many police departments use hem as a cheaper alternative to the AR.

Sounds like you are starting a sales show ....

I'm not selling ANYTHING. Tomorrow it might be illegal to buy new ones. Best to hold what you got.

[christelsabine 1]

normiss

What was your intent on your insult to him?

What is title of this thread? See above: *Mass shooting*

And there is this funny clown with a new avatar, aiming with a hand gun into observers face, offering to sell a Glock.

THAT is lowest level.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[jbscout2002 1]

Anvilbrother

They kind of did something that for us here. Your CCW permit is your free to buy card now.

Quote

The passage of Act 221 of the 2014 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature amends La. R.S. 40:1379.3 to require the Department of Public Safety to conduct a check on every Concealed Handgun Permit applicant through the National Instant Background Check System (NICS) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Pursuant to Act 221 of the 2014 Legislative Session, approval from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has been obtained and possession of a current and valid 5-year Louisiana Concealed Handgun Permit, issued on or after March 9, 2015 shall constitute sufficient evidence of the background check required pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(t) for the purchase of a firearm, and may be used in lieu of a NICS check. However, as stated in Act 221, possession of a Concealed Handgun Permit that has a Lifetime designation shall not constitute sufficient evidence of the background check pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(t).

I would bend on this one. We have always done the NICS check. It gives you and extra 15 minutes to look at possible accessories for your new gun. There is the possibility of having a CCW for a year, then beating up your spouse, and then using your year old permit to bypass that domestic violence issue on the application.

And the "free to buy" card and CCW ideas....personally I think they should be two separate items. An easy to obtain free to buy card, on a system similar to a drivers license or something, but the CCW being something requiring additional vetting and certification.

That provides for the crowd that desires the CCW verses the crowd that wants a couple sporting Ruffles in the safe. NY does the CCW as a right to buy hand guns and it is all or nothing. I have a CCW from OK honored by 38 states, but NY, i can't have a pistol in my home without the NY CCW. You can't even touch a pistol at the gun store without a NY CCW.

[Anvilbrother 0]

You are making no sense there bud. Can you rephrase your intended insult about the glock and his problems.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[jbscout2002 1]

A federally standardize right to buy card would provided a more comprehensive system of background checks, which is good, and can simultaneously streamline the background check process so the NRAers would stand to gain from it. Why would they oppose it?

[Anvilbrother 0]

My thoughts exactly and I don't know if the state is doing rechecks every week, month etc during your CCW permit period to see if it is still valid. There has to be something going on behind the scenes for the federal level to accept this type of authorization.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[Anvilbrother 0]

Like the issue above you would still need to have a check that day to make sure you didn't beat up your wife last month. I don't see some sort of automatic revocation system either. They can't even link crimin databases as it is. One of the last shooters was allowed to purchase because a flag could not be verified by a local department so he was allowed to purchase. Iirc.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[christelsabine 1]

Anvilbrother

You are making no sense there bud. Can you rephrase your intended insult about the glock and his problems.

I am not responsible for your comprehension skills. And not your bud.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[turtlespeed 221]

christelsabine

***What was your intent on your insult to him?

What is title of this thread? See above: *Mass shooting*

And there is this funny clown with a new avatar, aiming with a hand gun into observers face, offering to sell a Glock.

THAT is lowest level.

Not even close.

But if you see a clown, you know the saying, you can't dislike anything in anyone else unless you dislike that about yourself.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun