packsaddle

If you think you know of an instance of such influence you are honor-bound to report that and make sure the liars are exposed and punished. Everything I did for decades with the federal government was politically-sensitive, EVERYTHING, and I was NEVER told or asked or even given a vague hint that I needed to do anything other than to report what I thought was the objective truth. Some of these projects covered more than 20 years of work, contentious meetings, and court challenges and the ONLY time I ever detected a hint of bias was from some state agency people in the opposition. Even the DOJ people were explicit: do NOT inject any kind of bias - ONLY state our results objectively. The only instructions I EVER got from the top brass was to tell them the honest truth. If the agency you work for does not operate that way, I don't see how you can continue the position without giving up your own professional integrity. If someone is trying to sway your findings, you are honor bound to put your neck on the line to expose that action and see that the DOJ or some other authority corrects the situation.

Vol_scouter, since you're in 'the business', you'll be able to do your own independent analysis of the data to show how wrong all those biased lefties are, if you feel that strongly about it. I look forward to the submission of your good work for peer review. Or...we can just remain ignorant.

This kind of rigor has proven itself with respect to some other 'hot button' issues. It takes time, sometimes, for people to accept strong evidence, but it has happened in the not-too-distant past. FYI, I just pulled that ladybug/earthworm thing out of thin air to illustrate the difference. And in case Beavah is about to pounce on my insensitivity toward earthworms, I'm in no way trying to minimize how earthworms feel. Some of my friends are worms, etc., etc,....well, at least some of them HAVE worms, lol. Those wacky parasitologists!

"Look who it put in the office of the executive." Yeah, 2000 was a bummer wasn't it? Ideally, I'd like for the research to occur in more than one transparent step. For something like this there will be powerful interests trying to influence the results so it would be best for the entire process to be completely open, the data freely available, and then, regardless of the report conclusions, anyone will be free to use the data in order to complete their own analysis. That, of course is just for starters. Once the initial study is completed I would hope for long-term monitoring to continue to collect this kind of data, kind of like the DOE does for various statistics for the energy sector. Long term trends for multivariate data could be useful. I doubt that we will ever be able to conduct a controlled experiment for this kind of problem.

The beauty of research like this is that the methods and data will be very closely scrutinized. Assuming those methods and data are not found to be flawed in some way, then anyone can employ the data in their own analyses and conclusions. In fact this is almost the actual publishing process. In the case of this particular research effort, however, no matter who does it - they are going to have a huge number of other researchers lurking to pick the work apart if it is in error. The self-correcting aspect of this kind of study should be strong for this topic where such oversight might not be as intense for, say, study of the interactions of ladybugs with earthworms...who cares?

Thanks, The first link has this line: "Store guns so they are not accessible to unauthorized persons." And then offers some explanation. What I was hoping to find was their advice for homes with children and the second link addressed that. But given the (evidently) variable state laws regarding firearms in the home, the NRA couldn't be very specific. But at least this gives everyone a basis for discussion about safe firearms in the home. That helps.

Can someone help me out? I'm trying to find the NRA rules (guidelines, whatever) for firearm safety in the home. Or really, any related personal safety literature that comes close to this. Is there some other firearm-related organization that has literature on this topic? But mainly, I'd like to know what the NRA recommends with regard to firearms in the home. If someone could point me to a link on the NRA web site that would be just great. Thanks

What IS "taxing ammo in a punitive way"? At what threshold does it become 'punitive'?

I too have a cricket hat and it's beyond my comprehension how that thing could be used to kill someone. Edit: Bat! Bat! Sorry, I guess I need some new glasses. Sometimes a hat is just a hat. Beavah, the speed limit analogy is not a bad one. But I can show you places where the speed limit INCREASES for school zones. If the word 'stupid' comes to mind, I agree. But it's the same with this issue. If we pass a law that is clearly flawed, we need to admit it. And if we've already tried it in the past and it failed, then we should try to benefit from that experience. This is one reason why I think the ban on data collection and research is, well, stupid.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Rolling eyes...yes, yes, David slew Goliath. Can the 'clash of the Titans' subside a little? Now, how about those armed security guards, teachers, and students?

Beavah, I'm good with prohibition from carrying on airlines, at schools, and on anyone's private property if that's what they choose. For that last one I'd also include their business if they're the owner. If some moron wants to carry into a church, I'd say let the individual churches determine their own policy. Let them answer for themselves, WWJD? And while I understand the thinking about bars, let's face it, some of us need to compensate for our 'shortcomings' SOME-how. I say let the market take care of that one. The Darwin awards await. Finally, I'm ok with keeping them out of court rooms and other government buildings as well.

I did it because of a couple of people who were threatening to kill me. Thankfully, I never had to use it. I may let the permit lapse now, however. There no longer is a threat. Eagledad, When I had children, I parked the bike. When they finished college, I started riding again. I'm going to pass on the tats.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

It IS called 'Canon Law' after all. Sorry, couldn't resist. I'm not so certain your sentimental view of church is shared by the 'nutters' who promote the 'right' to carry most anywhere. And if schools are mandated to allow CC (which I strongly oppose), I would insist that the same be applied to all other places, including hospitals, bars, government buildings, and churches. I was a bit put off during my CC training, when the instructors spent a good bit of time explaining the specific details of the requirements for signage if some business establishment wants to prohibit guns. The instructions were explicitly intended to let us (the students) know how to evade any charges if we were caught - namely placement of the signs, how big, the specific wording, etc. Any little technical mistake, we were told, disqualifies the establishment and there could be no successful charges. They explicitly stated that 'this' part of the 'training' was intended to let us know how to 'get around' the current limitations and to be able to enter premises of improperly signed establishments with confidence. The time we spent on this nonsense might have been better spent on safe handling or something, I think. But the message was clear to me. There are some who, despite being able to qualify for CC, do not respect the law regarding gun free zones, and who are willing to show others 'the way'. I suspect this is a sort of unwritten 'Canon Law' as well. They obviously think 'theirs' takes priority over 'yours'.

Here are the texts from Vol_scouter and me from the other thread: Vol_scouter wrote: "Academia controls all of the so called 'reputable' journals and the media. They are left leaning to left wing. There is no opportunity for fair research or review of research. Anthropogenic Global Warming is the obvious example. No contrary opinion is allowed and then the left says 'see, there are no reputable journals to back on other interpretation'. There have been some 'studies' published in medical journals that were poor science and reached unsubstantiated conclusions that were lauded. Contrary views were treated derisively rather than with serious discussions. There is no opportunity for free and honest discourse in academia for anything that has to do with the left's view of the world." I replied: "Vol_scouter, are you aware of the Wall Street Journal article which describes the recent opinions of the AGW skeptic, Richard Muller? Have your familiarized yourself with his approach, his analysis, and his papers on this topic?" And then Beavah spun this one. I will delete the other posts, mine and that of Vol_scouter, in order to try to keep that thread on topic. Thanks, Beavah.

...continuing with the economic analogy, he might be up to asking customers if they would like fries with their order. My advice: if you see this guy at checkout, check your change. When Beavah first noted the prohibition of research, I was stunned. I didn't believe it. So I did some more reading and it seems to be correct. This, to me, is a stunning legislative failure. Why would anyone interested in finding answers decide not to gather and analyze information. This conforms to my purest definition of 'stupid': intentional ignorance (which, considering the history of the legislature seems a good fit). I think the proposal to do this research is not only 'good' but vital to identifying the best ways to address problems we face. Here's the part that's missing, I think. IF we adopt restrictions on purchases or ownership, etc., those should be subject to rejection should the research show them to be ineffective or counterproductive. If the decision-making process is driven by informed reason, it should cut both ways and in a manner indifferent to our current emotional responses.

"The worst thing Lott ever did was use a fake persona to write himself complementary book reviews. I wish my past hold up to such scrutiny!" JoeBob, thanks for saving me time by revealing this for me. You might try to minimize something like this but in my field, what you just described would be a permanent, likely fatal, blemish on a career. It doesn't quite attain the level of falsified results which IS fatal for a career (but then, I haven't critically examined the rest of his work), but if I were you, I would not trust anyone who engaged in this kind of blatant lie. Period. It shows the guy to be self-serving to a fault and it doesn't exactly cover Fox with glory that he has been taken into the fold.

I had heard something about the Alex Jones interview but I just watched a re-run, it was my first viewing. It wasn't exactly evidence that would contradict your claim. That said, we ARE all scouters and I continue to think that most or all of us strive to be trustworthy. The part that seems to be suffering is the desire or even the ability to question one's own beliefs, given conflicting evidence. This is a human reaction but it doesn't necessarily contribute to progress.

I agree, why does he have to be a member?

Basement, I just ran those questions past my mind and can only conclude: I am an incredibly boring person. Thanks a whole lot. BTW, the only complaint I get about my basement range is how loud it is. But I'm old, so lead and smoke are no longer an important concern for me. Trevorum, I think a 100% tax would be a great place to start. Even a moron could figure it out at that rate. And it could be adjusted up if needed to cover costs.

Brewmeister, about 4 decades ago, I was about to purchase my first handgun. In order to do that I first had to apply for a 'permit to purchase' from the Sheriff. Keep in mind that this is in the South where firearms are held with religious reverence. When I applied for the permit, I was given some really good advice. No matter WHO I purchased the handgun from, from a dealer or from a family member, get a copy of a signed receipt in order to legally establish ownership. This would release the seller from responsibility and transfer that responsibility to the purchaser. I bought a really nice target pistol from K-Mart for $67. Times sure have changed. But I think the record keeping aspect of all this is important for many of the same reasons as applied even way back then. The background check is even better. If it costs a little, then that's just the cost of doing this kind of business. The only wrinkle I can see in all this would be to establish some provision for inheritance of guns. If someone had been placed on a 'no purchase' list, I think we would need some way of addressing a potential inheritance placing guns in the wrong hands, perhaps as part of the execution of the will. Just a thought.

Yeah, Beavah, Callooh! Callay! is right. It's actually pretty easy to come up with that kind of malarkey on their own. I should know...it's sprouting up all over this area right now. I'm fairly certain that most of the sprouts haven't read those authors even for the first time.

Egad! There ARE people wacko enough to believe something like that. Beavah, I was wrong, they're NOT baiting you. So, I'm looking at my reloading supplies. What I'm seeing on some of the containers is that they're classed as explosives. DUH!!! C'mon people, get creative! Negentropy is not what propels a bullet. I can tell you from personal experience that dynamite (and blasting caps, and other unmentionables) can be a source of HUGE entertainment. If someone had access to dynamite these days, like I had back in the 60s, they could create a very effective defensive perimeter around their home especially considering the electronic gizmos we have now. They could even stick some of those little 'invisible fence' signs out there to keep the 'dogs' away. Woof! So ROCK ON, my fellow wackos! Timothy is smiling up at you, just waiting.

Beavah, c'mon. That has to be a joke. No one is wacko enough to believe something like that. The rest of you guys need to stop baiting the furry guy.

Either way, the AWB was ineffective. BS-87, Please explain where or what this "perfectly engineered utopia" is? Also what "noble lie"? You have given insufficient detail for me to understand what you're trying to communicate.

I'll try to help with your first goal by editing any rants that come through in the next couple of days. Now for my positive contribution, I'm wondering if there is any record-keeping or reporting requirement for those background checks? Would they be the same for individuals as they are for FFL dealers? I'm still interested in the possibility of enhancing market forces in the gun and ammunition market. I've suggested, in the past, that a hefty tax would provide incentives for different market decisions, and the funds generated could be used to cover the costs of armed guards (just for example). About those armed guards, I suspect that will be left to localities for that decision, at least that's the way it's beginning to look around these parts.