Beavah

Fine Beavah, but why the fixation on guns? I don't reckon there's any fixation. I think if there was any tool or disease that was killing or injuring tens of thousands of people a year we would be doin' research on it. Thirty thousand deaths with coal mining equipment would create an enormous outcry; thirty thousand deaths of disease from coal mining garners millions of dollars of research. If da coal mining industry and its friends tried to block research like that they would rightly be pilloried. Beavah

I did read your post for content, SR540. I didn't see anywhere where yeh suggested how yeh were goin' to pay for all those armed guards. Not just schools, but apparently movie theaters and sports events and other places kids gather. What tax are yeh proposing to pay for armed security at four to ten times da current level? Or are yeh proposing tens of billions of dollars of borrow-and-spend? Da fundamental problem with armed guards is that they are a very, very poor use of tax dollars compared with adding to da general police force. Da second problem for those who are concerned about liberty is that adding lots and lots of additional armed police to the state is quite a threat to freedom. Lots of historical states tend to find more and more ways of using those armed folks in more and more invasive ways. B

Yah, so again, jblake47, how are yeh goin' to pay for it? I grant it's emotionally attractive to label 'em all criminals and enact zero-tolerance laws with long prison terms. But our prisons are full, eh? Da reason people don't tend to get long terms for first offense minor gun crimes is that we can't afford it. Da states are broke. So what tax are yeh goin' to increase to pay for da expansion of prisons, and addin' prosecutors and such? And what rights surrender for your strict zero-tolerance regime? Da other problem is that previous-offender criminals are just a fraction of da problem. Lots of suicides, murder-suicides, accidents, armed altercations and such committed by folks who were regular, ordinary, law-abiding citizens up until that point. Your "jail 'em all" approach would not have stopped Sandy Hook or any of da other school shootings in the last month. B

Yah, once again, da right to travel is a fundamental right. It is not a privilege granted by the state. That includes da right to walk, ride a horse, peddle a bicycle, paddle a canoe, drive a car, or fly a plane. Yeh all need to stop surrendering your rights to da government by calling them "privileges" which da state can take away at a whim. Basement, hmmmm... Recurrent background checks, mental health checks, and demonstrated proficiency seem reasonable, paid in some way by enthusiasts directly or through taxes on ammo or some such. I think it would reduce the yahoos as well as catching some problem cases. Da problem yeh have is whether the state can come confiscate your weapons when yeh fail one of the checks. Or do yeh have a licensing thing where yeh can't use without a license? Is that enforceable? Would such a licensing scheme matter to someone mentally ill? Number three seems tough. I'm not sure we ever want to establish a law which applies to anybody just because of potential genetic proclivity. Number four, sounds like you're proposing buy-backs and confiscations? Granted, that's a one-time cost rather than a recurring cost, but how would yeh pay for it? I confess I sorta agree that there's no need for detachable magazines for anything from hunting to basic home defense; their utility is limited to extended shoot-outs. Number five I think would only be useful if yeh established somethin' like TwoCubDad's liability scheme, where yeh have to be able to establish ownership so as to place liability. What's the point of registration in your scheme? Anyone who commits a crime with a gun has their sentence doubled with no hope of parole. This is another huge cost, since most crimes are committed by young people, and we'd be incarcerating 'em for a very, very long time. It's also unclear whether young folks think about that, so how much of a real deterrent it would be is an open question. How are yeh goin' to pay for it? Then there's the zero-tolerance thing. So your son takes an unloaded gun to school to threaten a school bully. Yeh want him to get 10 years for that? Or if WasE61 gets his way, yeh want him to get da hangman's noose? Beavah

JMHawkins, who is proposin' research on gun ownership? That's da stuff for a gun manufacturer's marketing effort, not for any other practical purpose. Da nature of research would relate to da CDC and CPSC missions of researching gun injuries and fatalities. What are the numbers of accidents? What are da primary factors in da accidents? Age? Training? Type of use? Product features (ex. lots of jams / hard to clear)? Drug or alcohol use? What can we do to mitigate da accidents? What are the figures on suicides? Why do some suicides convert to murder/suicides? What are the factors in that? Are they tied to specific medications or mental health diagnoses? Which meds, what doses? How are suicide guns usually obtained? Is there a preference as to type of firearm used (so that programs can be put in place in terms of marketing or sales to reach disturbed individuals before a disaster)? Any common factors that could be warning signs or contraindications? What are da figures on homicides? Where are those firearms obtained? What percentage are heat of the moment vs. criminal enterprise vs. premeditated? What are da real figures on self-defense with firearms? How many are successful? Usin' what tactics or weapons? What sort of experience/training makes that more likely to be successful? One can dream up a thousand interestin' research questions that should be pursued, none of which would be on gun ownership. Many of which, like figurin' out da relationship to Rx drug use, would definitely involve collecting health care data. We might find out that gun-related murder/suicide is very strong in football players sufferin' from repetitive head trauma. Beavah

Does that come from the local taxes we pay or federal funds RETURNED to us, I don't know. Well yeh should look it up. In your case, since your state is a net recipient of federal dollars, yeh are really asking da rest of us to fund these guards for your schools with our tax dollars that you're takin' from us. If you're goin' to propose more than a four-fold increase in coverage, then yeh have to propose a more than four-fold increase in tax revenue to pay for it. And in the end, one fellow with a pistol is either likely to be out of place or just a victim of a guy in body armor who comes in by surprise with a semi-automatic rifle, eh? Schools are big and have multiple access points. So you'll need more than one guard per school. That's a level far below what the President's children have, but yeh still haven't suggested any way of paying for it. Da cost is $10 billion per year for one guard in every school, not countin' training, equipage, and insurance. Call it $30 billion per year to have any reasonable deterrent presence, or $100 tax per firearm per year. Propose the tax, I'll vote for it. If nuthin' else, that sort of Keynesian stimulus will help reduce da unemployment rate. Odds are it will also reduce demand for guns by folks who really have no practical use for 'em, and therefore reduce da number of folks likely to leave guns around for their disturbed children to take to school. But someone will still accuse yeh of treatin' da President's children as being more important than anyone else's, because they get multiple armed guards per child. Beavah

I already said I approve of "universal" background checks, but that doesn't stop legally owned firearms from getting in the hands of criminals. How would yeh know, without any research and without first tryin' it? Da regular background check system rejects tens of thousands of sales per year. Since we have had no research, we honestly don't know how criminals get guns, other than da kids that take unsecured guns from relatives to shoot up schools. Deterrent comes in the form of punishment (post event) and it must be swift and definitive. However we have no stomach for that as a culture. That's a wish, not a proposal. What do yeh actually propose to make punishment "swift and definitive"? Generally, yeh have to sacrifice rights during trial or appeal to improve "swiftness". So which rights would yeh curtail? Or which rules of evidence would yeh change? It means encouraging teachers to take firearms training and paying them more for having certification just like we do for other proficiency. It may mean more armed guards in schools. However we appear to have no stomach for that either. Yah, OK, so that's half a proposal. Da second half is how would you pay for it? What taxes would yeh propose to generate da revenue to train and arm teachers, and pay the added insurance required? Puttin' one armed guard in every school is a $10 billion endeavor, per year. Multiple armed guards or lots of trained and armed teachers and we're talkin' tens of billions more. At 300 million guns in da U.S., that's $100 tax per year per gun. Or we can do it by taxing ammo, which would be more expensive per gun user (since I reckon a lot of those 300 million guns are not fired and are just sittin' around). I'm doubtin' the school's regular liability carrier is goin' to be willing to cover this, so what would yeh do to create a federal insurance pool to cover da liability risk? Beavah

Yah, many years ago I was hikin' along da North Country Trail, traversing downhill from a ridge. I was hikin' with a few kids when we started takin' fire. Turns out some fellow and his son had set up a little shootin' range, firing at cans on stumps and branches uphill from below, heedless of da presence of the trail above them. Among the times I've been closest to injurious violence. I was glad I had the kids with me to force me to remain a good example, but if one of 'em had been hurt... I was out on openin' day of waterfowl season this fall. I never do that; I always try to avoid openin' day because it brings out da nitwits. This year was no exception. I wish we could ban semi-automatic shotguns just so some fellows would learn how to shoot. By the time you've lit off your 5th round, it's time to admit that yeh missed the dang thing and should stop sprayin' lead in a big arc heedless of what's around yeh. Still, it's a minority, but they give everybody a bad name. Beavah

Yah, I guess I am a fellow who believes in personal accountability, not just blowin' things off as statistics. I wouldn't dismiss an injured or dead kid on a scout outing as "well, them's the statistical breaks" . Nor would I for light plane accidents or any other thing. In fact, I would read da accident reports in order to learn from 'em, and make judgments, so as not to make da same mistakes myself. And if I felt da scouter or pilot had failed in their responsibility or duty of care, I'd say so, and as a member of both communities, I'd be embarrassed and ashamed for them. Why should it be any different here? Unload your gun for transport rather than be a dumb-ass. It's da law most places, and it's da proper thing to do regardless. Beavah

Da proper answer is "The BSA is probably the largest and most diverse youth group in the nation, serving kids of all races and across the economic spectrum, with leaders and scouts of every political and religious persuasion. I'm a participant on at least one national scoutin' forum, and it is clear from my participation that we span the political and religious and cultural spectrum of America. You can't find a more diverse group servin' so many kids. Yep, that quietly includes gay youth and kids who don't have any clear belief in God." "The BSA has never been bigoted. It has members on all sides of this issue, and respects their viewpoints. It doesn't attempt to change other organizations, or support legislation opposing gay marriage, or try to defund other organizations with whom it disagrees. It does have a mildly religious mission in supporting Duty to God, and its current policies reflect da fact that the large majority of major religions in da U.S. and the world have moral teachings on certain topics. We respect that, and choose not to call those of faith "bigoted" for havin' moral viewpoints. We provide a safe haven for them as well as those who struggle with belief or sexuality." "The diversity of America is that citizens can support and work alongside each other even though they aren't members of the same faith, or the same club, or the same corporation. The BSA as the most diverse youth group in da nation continues to teach that. We don't have to be members of the same group to be citizens who respect each other and work together. You should consider joining us and learning who we really are and what we really do, before you thoughtlessly accuse us of bigotry." B

They don't seem to care that the BSA has largely lost its position as a national icon. Well, that's what you'd like to think, eh? Close as I can tell, we still have that position in many ways and in many communities. Da story of da BSA's gradual membership decline is not the story of culture wars over gays or atheists, despite what lobbyists on that side would have yeh think. There just aren't that many folks who make decisions about youth programs on that criteria, and most of those wouldn't be BSA members in any event. Da story of da BSA's gradual membership decline is largely the story of weakness of leadership and vision at the top, reinforced by in-grown and bloated executive ranks. We haven't had a visionary program person committed to kids since Green Bar Bill, eh? Instead we've had large committees of diffuse responsibility who sorta tinker and slowly erode da program, coupled with a cadre of executives who mostly waste their time maintainin' an out-of-date system while fearfully protectin' their jobs. So what we've seen is not a sudden drop-off of members after Dale. We've seen a gradual, steady decline as weak program and vision slowly costs us market share to da expansion of more focused K-8 sports and clubs. Programs with more vision, that demand more commitment, and show more results to kids and parents. Despite that, we still see strong troops holdin' on just fine because we still have unit leaders with strong vision and high levels of commitment, but like as not they are succeeding largely on their own merits and their deeper knowledge of kids and scouting. I agree with Eamonn's point, eh? As we've drifted, we've also let da folks without vision stake out untenable and ridiculous positions, from banning toy guns and wheelbarrows to de-emphasizing patrol method and eliminating patrol outings, to "active=registered" advancement, to trumpeting amorphous pablum like "Timeless Values" instead of youth outdoor adventure and leadership. Like da Republicans, da BSA has become da "Organization of NO!" in some ways. Yeh know what it prohibits, but yeh no longer are clear on exactly how it contributes. Beavah

HANG THE BANKERS! Can we use the small intestines of lawyers to string 'em up? Nah, yeh should know by now that lawyers have no guts. Besides, it was cut da bankers up into little pieces, not hang 'em! B

Packsaddle, you seem to be missing the key contention - that government funded research is no less prone to distortion than privately funded research. Even were that da case (which is unlikely given that there is no direct personal financial gain entailed, the way there is for private research), government-funded research would be preferable, because government-funded research is subject to clear protections for human subjects, has greater oversight by diverse stakeholders (typically includin' a mandate for an outside evaluation team), can compel participation as a means of evaluatin' government programs and therefore greatly reduce sampling bias, and the data is made available to everyone for verification/re-analysis. What your concern seems to be is that da research is likely to begin with an assumption that there's a problem to be solved, and therefore tend to effects-hunt. Yah, sure, that's a genuine concern. Positive findings are published more often than negative findings, and some of those are spurious. That's an argument for strong peer review, open data, and replication, not an argument to restrict research. Vol_scouter has offered da same critiques on medical research, eh? And yet, for all its flaws, medical research continues to advance da state of the art of medicine. Would yeh propose no federal funding or data collection on health care and medicine as well? Beavah

Eagle732, I'm a friend and fellow scouter, a gun owner and hunter, an advocate of personal liberty, a supporter of concealed carry, an opponent of excessive federal regulation, and a former NRA member. In this policy arena, I'm da conservative-moderate friend of gun ownership. If yeh say things that are funny, yeh have to expect that people are goin' to laugh, eh? Sayin' that gun rights advocates don't use emotional appeals da way gun control advocates do is funny. We've had everything from Obama not caring about other people's kids to warnings about da future coming of Stalin or Pol Pot! To my mind, a friend chucklin' is a far kinder thing than spendin' time compiling a long post with every appeal to emotion fully cataloged in rebuttal. That just strikes me as bein' over the top pedantic or lawyerly, and I get accused of that enough. If in your eyes yeh see me as a liberal Democrat out to take guns away, that's just funny to me. If yeh can't convince a paleoconservative gun owner like me, how are yeh goin' to convince da nation? What you're seein' on da forums with any of these issues is that there's debate. Debate is a fine thing. Helps all of us look beyond ourselves, question our own knowledge, and come together. I was actually impressed by how much common ground there was on da gun issue. But as that common ground develops, the debate becomes more heated and goes on for longer when folks stake out fairly rigid positions and startin' viewin' da opposition as the enemy. It's not limited to gays and guns, eh? Yeh should see some of da long threads on Guide to Safe Scouting, Advancement, and Uniforms! The same things happen in those; folks with rigid positions start seein' fellow scouters as bein' out to get kids by "denying" advancement or as unsafe for playin' lasertag privately or as disobedient anarchists for not strictly followin' da Insignia Guide. And that generates some silly fictions about insurance or tort law most of da time. It's all just human. That's why humor is a good thing sometimes, eh? We can't take ourselves too seriously. Beavah

Nah, I didn't miss the point. In wartime, yeh can draft humans into military service, deprive 'em of all kinds of rights during their term of service, and afterward not compensate 'em for what their business losses were while they were away. That doesn't mean da rights don't exist, it means that in wartime there can be an extra tax on our labor or our goods as the needs of war demand. Sorry, but in this area I have a fair bit of expert knowledge, eh? I'm not lyin' to you when I say that the right to travel on or in a personally owned means of travel was viewed throughout da history of da Republic as a fundamental Constitutional right. As fundamental as da right to breathe the air in public spaces (a right, I'll note, that is also not enumerated. ). Only in da modern era of vehicle travel where da increased power, speed, and traffic density demanded safety and commerce regulation has that been eroded. Perhaps that's some of that "people givin' up their rights" that some folks keep talkin' about. Like with TSA, eh? Though TSA only applies to common carrier air transport. Airline security was historically a commerce regulation. It placed requirements on businesses engaged in air transport to ensure safe and reliable commerce. I can still hop in a private plane and fly almost anywhere I want, without talkin' to anybody, and without takin' off my shoes. To have true freedom of travel on a horse, yeh have to own da horse. Still, if yeh want to prevent da erosion of fundamental rights, yeh have to stop treatin' 'em like they are privileges that the government grants. That's balderdash. We aren't a monarchy. Our rights do not come as grants of privilege from da monarch. Beavah

Sorry, RememberSchiff, impressment in wartime is a different deal, eh? In wartime the government can also impress humans, not just horses. Da law always recognized that the right of travel applied not just to walking, but to the common personal transport of the day. Like all rights, it is subject to reasonable regulation when the state has compelling interest, for safety or commerce. When we got to high levels of auto or air traffic, rules and formalized training became necessary. For each, da rules for commerce have always been much stronger than for private individuals. Thus separate license classes for commercial operators of cars, boats, and planes, with stricter rules. Beavah

Yah, I think we have to be a bit careful with news reports, eh? Since this is da hot topic of the moment, every newsie is goin' to be on da lookout for related stories. So we're goin' to see stories that would typically appear only locally splashed nationally if they are gun violence with weapons of da type proposed for regulation, and if any arise, we'll see stories of anybody who whips out their AR-15 to defend their home or their neighbor as well. Just how the media works, eh? Best to exercise more-than-average skepticism in usin' any news reports for makin' decisions for a while. I confess I was a bit embarrassed by the string of accidental shootings across da nation that coincided with "Gun Appreciation Day". Really? How hard is it to unload your firearm and secure it properly before puttin' it in a case for transport? Beavah

Yah, vol_scouter, have yeh actually ever read any of da documents of the Founding Fathers? There was considerable concern by Madison, Hamilton, and others that some daft person in da future would try to apply expressio unius est exclusio alterius in the way that yeh seem to want to. See for example Federalist 84. It was for this reason that the 9th Amendment was added for clarity. Da right to freedom of travel, including travel by a conveyance of da person's choice, has always been considered a fundamental right in da U.S. - even before da Constitution in the Articles of Confederation. Did I miss something? Can I freely travel to Cuba now? LOL. Yah, well, yeh are free to drive your car there. Actually, yeh do have a Constitutional right to freedom of travel to Cuba. But like all rights, it is subject to regulation when da state has a compelling interest. Most of da law and regulation does not actually restrict travel per se; it restricts trade. Essentially, it's an embargo of an enemy country which includes spending any money in Cuba. You can probably go to Cuba in connection with your day job, since educational exchanges are now OK. Da rest of us need to have relatives to leech off of down there. But driving a car on PUBLIC highways with other members of the public is a PRIVILEGE False. Travel on public roads or through da public airspace, be it by foot or horse or bicycle or auto is a fundamental Constitutional right. In all the States from the beginning down to the adoption of the Articles of Confederation the citizens thereof possessed the fundamental right, inherent in citizens of all free governments, peacefully to dwell within the limits of their respective States, to move at will from place to place therein, and to have free ingress thereto and egress therefrom. - United States v. Wheeler Indeed, travel by personal stock or vehicle is necessary to da exercise of most other rights, eh? To vote, to assemble, to speak, to worship, to go purchase a gun - all depend on a fundamental right to travel. Even that right to drive a car on your private land is contingent on a right to somehow drive da car to your property from the dealer. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmm... Careful, there. You're mostly right, CalicoPenn, except that mutual funds, includin' money market funds, are not FDIC insured. Only deposit accounts and CDs. This is where da mixing of investment vehicles and traditional deposit accounts in "big" banking and insurance companies is confusin' and problematic. Plus, in today's interest rate environment, banks are typically not makin' money on da interest rate spread on your deposits. They're makin' money on fees for moving your money around into different investment vehicles and repackaging derivative securities as investment vehicles. And they're makin' money on their own portfolio and trading desks. B

Cars are not rights. Why not? Yah, yah, cars weren't around in 1787, but do yeh think da Founding Fathers would have considered horses a right? That if yeh owned a horse, the government could stop you from using it or take it away? Of course not. One of da most fundamental rights is the right to freedom of movement. That doesn't just mean walking. It means bein' able to travel to your place of employment or go on vacation with your family or just go off to see a neighbor. Yah, and da right to travel to attend worship services, and to speak, and gather news reports, and peaceably assemble to petition da government for redress of grievances. Da only folks we put real travel restrictions on are convicted criminals, eh? Travel restrictions on horses would have been a far more effective way of stoppin' da Revolution than taking guns, as it would have cut off communication. So it's complete nonsense to treat personally owned modes of transportation in da modern world as not being a "right." But like all rights, we regulate it when da state has a compelling interest in doing so. Typically, for safety, also sometimes for maintaining orderly commerce. There's nuthin' at all wrong with regulating firearms for safety, or for maintaining orderly civil defense. Eagle732 raises a similar (and I must say, attractive) issue for voting, eh? We do regulate da right to vote. Many states prohibit felons from voting, and used to require land ownership to vote (before we became an industrial society where renting was popular and economically efficient). Adding an education or test requirement probably passes muster, at least so long as it does not have differential effect on protected class(es). A mental health requirement also likely passes muster. So we see that all rights are subject to limitations. It's disingenuous to claim that the right of the people to keep and bear arms so as to support the security of a free state through a well-regulated militia should be utterly free of limit or regulation. Beavah

JoeBob, thanks for a trip through da history of da Battle of Athens. An interestin' bit of American history, to be sure. Sorta cut from da same cloth as Matewan or Blair Mountain. Wonder why yeh didn't mention those? Anyways, a good and less Hollywood account can be found at http://www.americanheritage.com/content/battle-athens?page=show . The dispute largely grew out of da returning veterans free-drinking and carousing habits, and da local sheriff's office being paid for every arrest, eh? Gotta love the lads and their booze, and cops who are fee-seeking. Da post-prohibition form of da Appalachian speed trap. So arrestin' the lads for drunkeness was very popular among the cops, and not always completely honest. The ballots had been counted at the jailhouse for years, they weren't absconded with. That's all Hollywood. Unclear whether they ever had fraud in mind, but voter intimidation was certainly out in force. Curiously, da fellow who gets shot was in fact an old black farmer just tryin' to vote, not a white guy with a gun. Many of da weapons, including ammunition and Thompson sub-machine guns were stolen from the National Guard armory. Da National Guard was in fact never called up, that was just a rumor, and the armed veterans outnumbered the deputies by close to 10:1. Despite that, the guns achieved very little, with the attackers nearly shooting their ammo dry while only wounding a few people. Da matter was in fact decided by dynamite, but not carefully placed demolition charges as depicted in the movie. They lit fuses and lobbed packages of dynamite randomly at the building, along with Molotov cocktails as part of a general riot which continued for hours after the deputies had surrendered. It wasn't all done with clean hands, there were beatings and other injuries inflicted on captured deputies and even calls for murder. Da press of the day generally considered it a dangerously lawless riot or a reckless vigilante action, with da notable exception of da liberal Catholic magazine Commonweal. In that way, it sorta resembled Matewan or Blair Mountain as well, with da progressive liberals siding with the rioters. What's interestin' is that da guys depicted as bad guys in the movie in the end opted to resign, thereby ending the standoff in town without any more bloodshed or outside intervention. B

What I HAVE found is that most of those who advocate for 2nd Amendment rights are very well-informed, very well-read on the subject, and have a very good understanding of the research and the issues involved (historical, legal, and technical) - much more so than those who are opposed to firearms rights, who tend to rely on emotional appeals. Yah, this has me in stitches. Have yeh been watchin' da news lately? Or readin' what folks have been writin' here in da forums at Scouter.com? I'm not sayin' that any pro-gun argument is bad. I'm a hunter and a firearm owner, a fellow who has actively worked for "shall issue" CCW laws and who believes that Heller was properly decided. Yah, sure, sometimes we as individuals have da same view as an organization profiting off that view. But what we're seein' of late is stuff that no First Class scout at age 12 would buy into without laughin'. If da president has armed federal agents guarding his kids, everyone has to? If they don't, that means the president doesn't care about American children? Really? I can certainly see how yeh would think that's not an emotional appeal. We've seen any number of people here advocate for rules against data collection and research. Yah, that shows they have a very good understandin' of da research, eh? Too funny. If in fact yeh want other folks to perceive what you claim to perceive, AZMike, then yeh have to do your part to call the folks on our side to task when they try to pass off fraudulent or bad research like Lott, or they make emotional claims about da president's children, or they have curiously inaccurate versions of history like the whole yarn about the Nazis and gun registration / gun control. There really are sound, cogent arguments in favor of a relatively broad 2nd Amendment interpretation, but they're bein' lost in some of this silly nonsense. B

Yah, hmmmm.... Vol_scouter, that would be an opinion, eh? Or perhaps a hypothesis. So let's test da hypothesis. I think what you'll find is that for da most part the research is more sound and informative than listening to either Feinstein or da NRA. Nobody will be making up history or moralizing about evil guns. That alone would be an improvement. I suspect you'd find that a lot of da research looked something like that study of 10 years of data out of Texas, eh? The one I shared earlier on CCW permit holders and crime. Responsible, thoughtful with the data they had, a bit of lookin' for effects of certain types one way or the other, but honest in the reporting. CCW permit holders are generally safe, much less likely to commit common crimes like burglary, slightly more likely to commit firearms felonies or sexual abuse, but the latter is a small subset and is probably related to demographic factors in most cases, not to carrying. If they had better data, they could have controlled for those demographic factors. Da bigger risk with any research is what da popular press and the lobbyists do with it after it's published. Often news media reports bear little resemblance to the actual work, and sometimes researchers get caught up in that glamour a bit and say things which make for inaccurate sound bites. And lobbyists just lie and spin, eh? But that's not da fault of research or researchers. We can always start by believin' all doctors are out to serve da medical/pharmaceutical industry, eh? And then choose to ignore doctors or not fund medical research because all it will lead to is more expensive treatment and higher medical costs. There's a kernel of truth there, to be sure. But it's still a silly conclusion. Beavah

Yah, my knowledge of economic policy is a bit better than my knowledge of gun policy, eh? So I thought I'd pass along this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/business/a-fed-voice-asking-to-cut-megabanks-down-to-size.html?_r=0 Da original speech is worth readin' too. I hadn't realized how much da big banks were soaking up monetary policy and funneling it into their trading portfolio rather than into loans. This to my mind is a traditional conservative position, and I'm glad it's finally getting a public run. Rather than creating 2000 pages of law with 10,000 pages of regulation like Dodd-Frank, most of which just costs money and accomplishes not much, yeh do the obvious thing. Yeh break up big banks, yeh re-establish firewalls between commercial banking and investment banking and insurance and futures/derivatives trading, yeh get the taxpayers out of insuring anything other than commercial banking and yeh eliminate executive and director immunity. In other words, yeh return to an era of private accountability, where da public can afford to let any set of firms go bust as a way of being accountable. I doubt that da Democrats would oppose it, and if da President got behind it we could probably repeal 80% of Dodd-Frank. Only question would be whether enough Senators of either party have been bought by da banking lobbyists to kill it quietly and anonymously. Beavah

Gun Haters say 9 out of 10 Americans support Gun Control Gun Lovers say 9 out of 10 Americans are against Gun Control Which Statement is Factual? Neither, obviously. Why would yeh believe data from a lobbyist group on either side with a clear conflict of interest? That's why yeh pay for independent, scientific research. From multiple researchers, with public access to data, and peer review. Yeh can get accurate results through scientific survey analysis and statistics without goin' and askin' every individual. But yeh have to turn to a professional like Nate Silver instead of a lobbyist like Karl Rove. Beavah