The emerging Biden Proposal

[OldGreyEagle]

Does anyone recall the Sarah Palin/Paul Revere Wikipedia war?

 

Wikipedia is not a scholarly reference source

[Basementdweller]

how about some of these not in gun free zones

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Seattle_cafe_shooting_spree

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shooting

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Azana_Spa_shootings

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Ratzmann

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chai_Vang

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Jewish_Federation_shooting

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_massacre

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wah_Mee_massacre

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Appomattox_shootings

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_Square_Shooting

[Basementdweller]

Might not be scholarly, but more than adequately proves that there was more than just one shooting outside of a gun free zone since 1950.

[Beavah]

Yah, so if I could try to bring this thread back around to its original intent. I think JoeBob's repeat of a right-wing commentator's repeat of a ridiculous claim by a lobbyist widely believed to have engaged in research fraud has been debunked.

 

We're talkin' about what we're seeing of da possible Biden proposals being leaked. So far, there seems to be majority agreement on the first three:

 

IN FAVOR

Closing the gun show loophole in some thoughtful way

Lifting restrictions on research in favor

 

AMBIVALENT

limits on high-capacity magazines are seen as mostly cosmetic and problematic without a buy-back.

 

 

Now we're talkin' about another leak, increased penalties for gun-free zones.

 

Let me respond to a point of JoeBob's a while back, since I was explainin' da rationale for gun-free zones.

 

One of da most common gun-free zones is prisons, eh? I wonder if there's anybody who disagrees that in visiting a prison, surrounded by bad guys, it's best to leave your firearm outside. Other gun-free zones include airports and public carrier airplanes, as well as government facilities. Does anyone really believe that it's prudent to lift those restrictions?

 

In the case I mentioned, the 18-year-old high school student was of course not a minor, and not subject to minor-in-possession laws as JoeBob claims. To what extent he is subject to other laws varies by state, but they really don't have teeth in most places.

 

Let's step back a bit, though, and consider. Billy Shooter (age 18) tells his friend Johnny Do-Good that he's had it with da jerks on the football team and implies (but doesn't quite say outright) that he's goin' to take his father's pistol and end the lot of them tomorrow at school. Johnny Do-Good drops a dime and calls the cops. Billy Shooter shows up at school open-carrying his father's pistol. Absent a gun-free zone, Billy may well be legal, eh? Aside from the threat he sort of didn't make to Johnny (likely hearsay), there aren't clear grounds on which law enforcement can hold him. Trespass can't stick, he's a student.

 

Gun free zones at churches seemed prudent because with various carry laws, it would be perfectly possible for a group of white supremacists to legally carry into a black church, again with no clear basis on which to stop them.

 

So the point of da gun-free zone laws are to provide a mechanism for stopping who is entering public places with a firearm, and a presumed (but perhaps not "beyond a doubt" provable) intent to do mischief. Stiffer penalties provide a means of detaining them for a longer period of time. Da places chosen to make "gun free" are those with lots of people that have been attractive targets in the past, or otherwise pose higher risk.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[SeattlePioneer]

No doubt Democrats will continue to favor LONGER suspended sentences for criminal violence.

 

[Beavah]

Yah, SP, can we try to stay on topic in this thread? Just as a favor. If yeh want to start a thread about how stupid Democrats are, I'll join in.

[JoeBob]

Hey Basement,

 

Thanks for the challenge. I think we both win:

 

Sticking to the wording of Lott's study, I read the nine shooting stories you posted.

 

These three were in churches, and were supposed to be free of guns:

Sikh Temple, Living Church of God (Terry Ratzman), Seattle Jewish Federation

Trolley Square was a mall, where guns weren't welcome.

Azana Spa saw only 3 innocents die. (Lott's criteria was more than 3.)

Wah Mee gambling club even checked for guns, but: " Mak and his accomplices defeated the system only because they were known and trusted by the people at the club."

Three happened in private locations not open to the public: Chai Vang trespassed onto private hunting land in Wisconsin, Appomattox was in and around one private home, and the Capitol Hill rave killings were at a private residence.

(Remember, Lott said "public shootings".

 

So, all nine of the examples from Wiki fall outside the criteria:

"public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns"

 

But looking through the Mother Jones Timeline I did find one rampage that needs to be added to the exception list: Mark Barton, Atlanta day trader killed 22 people in two businesses. I think that would have to be considered 'public'.

 

So, for the sake of argument, let me amend the statement:

 

90% of public shootings since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.

 

Now, does anyone seriously want to argue that 'Gun Free Zones' are a good thing?

 

Beavah, since one third of Basement's Wiki examples took place in a house of worship, do you want to reconsider: "Gun free zones at churches seemed prudent because with various carry laws, it would be perfectly possible for a group of white supremacists to legally carry into a black church, again with no clear basis on which to stop them."

The only way to stop the scenario that you described is with a congregation of armed black men shooting back. In fact you have made my point, haven't you? If the white supremacists are not deterred by the penalties for murder, then they sure as hell won't be deterred by 'Gun Free Zone' violations!

 

 

[Beavah]

JoeBob, yeh aren't really tryin' to defend Lott, are yeh? A fellow who appears to have committed repeated research fraud, who is a clearly biased lobbyist makin' his living off this stuff now? You're goin' to quote his "research"?

 

Our first obligation is honesty, eh? If yeh want any of your fellow citizens to believe your view is credible and consider it, yeh can't be pushin' stuff that's functionally outright lying by special interest groups.

 

I'll stick with my explanation of da rationale behind gun-free zones, eh? I didn't say I agreed with it completely, but I think there's merit to da rationale which should be considered. I think we want the police to be able to stop the lad who is entering the school with a gun before he shoots someone, and be able to prosecute him so that he doesn't come back next week to do it. I think we want da police to be able to arrest da fellows in da churchyard in the same way. I reckon that's a lot more realistic than fantasies of self-defense gun melees in da sanctuary. That doesn't mean that there aren't other factors to consider, but it does mean that this concern has to be taken into account.

 

Plus personally, as a Christian, I think reverence before God means that yeh come into a house of worship with your head and your hands bare.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[CalicoPenn]

"These three were in churches, and were supposed to be free of guns:

Sikh Temple, Living Church of God (Terry Ratzman), Seattle Jewish Federation" There are no factual statements to suggest the Sikh Temple was or was not a gun free zone or that it was chosen as a target for any reason other than it was a temple for Sikhs; the Seattle Jewish Federation building is an office building, not a church and there is no evidence that it was labeled as a gun free zone; and finally the Living Church of God shooting took place in a Sheraton Hotel pre-CCW in Wisconsin and there is no evidence it was or is labeled as a "gun free zone". Seems somone has a case of the "supposed to('s)" and assumes that if it's a church it must be a gun free zone.

 

"Trolley Square was a mall, where guns weren't welcome." There is no factual evidence to show that the Trolley Square Mall identified itself as a "gun free zone" at the time of the shooting that occurred there.

 

"Three happened in private locations not open to the public: Chai Vang trespassed onto private hunting land in Wisconsin, Appomattox was in and around one private home, and the Capitol Hill rave killings were at a private residence." While the shootings may have taken place on private land, in the case of the Capitol Hiss killings, 4 of the 6 killed were outside the house in the front yard which is accessible to the public, and in the Appomatix shootings, 4 of those killed were in the front yard accessible to the public and one was killed on the public street.

 

Lott is trying to make a larger point that Holmes chose the Century 16 because it was a "gun free zone" and none of the the other nearby theaters are not gun free zones according to his research, ignoring the fact that the Century 16 theater was the closest theater showing the Batman movie on midnight of the 20th of July, that one of the 2 closer theaters didn't start showing Batman until August, that the other is a theater chain catering to Latinos and wasn't showing Batman at midnight. Lott is assuming facts not in evidence, and is hoping that folks will read his opinion and take it as fact.

[boomerscout]

If it has been determined several times that viewing pornography may cause men to treat women not so well, then we need an equal amount of research into video games that promote blasting away at the opponents. This research needs to be neutral instead of by someone with a stake in the video game industry

 

We also need a lot more research into treating mental illness, into accepting the emotionally disabled instead of ostracizing them. What is needed soonest is studying the effects of the drugs currently used as to side effects, and what happens to the mind when those drugs are no longer taken. The shooter at the Aurora theater has such a wild eyed look, and now he looks normal.

 

More background checks are probably unconstitutional, but few have enough money to fight the government. More guns will then go underground

 

Every community is probably breaking the law because it does not have a militia -- a major part of the 2nd that most overlook. I can see using your battle rifle just for drill (as in Switzerland), but if you want to go hunting you are restricted to a muzzle-loader

 

Businessmen have long been allowed concealed carry as they carry their previous day's sales to the bank & back.

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmm.... not sure why yeh would think background checks would be unconstitutional, boomerscout.

 

Da liberal thinktank CAP seems to have come out with some recommendations accordin' to news reports, though their website doesn't show any statements yet. Here's what I'm able to guess from da reporting (why is all modern reporting so poor?):

 

Universal background checks / close the private sale loophole (even some of da more moderate firearm lobbyists are now in favor of this it seems).

 

Assault weapon and high capacity clip ban (on sale, manufacturing, transfer, or importing; apparently no buyback).

 

Modernizing databases to track gun sales and enforce existing laws (I think even da NRA has been saying this for years).

 

End ATF as a separate agency and absorb it into the FBI as an FBI division (this kind of reduction of bureaucracy and duplication of effort seems remarkably sensible).

 

Require firearms dealers to report people who make multiple semi-automatic assault rifle purchases within a 5-day period, the same as the current requirement for handguns. (gotta love the reporting. If they're banned, how can yeh have multiple purchases?).

 

Remove the restrictions on data collection and research.

 

I count that as being six things, but da reports mention 11 total, so I'm not sure what I'm missin'.

 

Beavah

 

[JoeBob]

Beavah:

 

"JoeBob, yeh aren't really tryin' to defend Lott, are yeh? A fellow who appears to have committed repeated research fraud, who is a clearly biased lobbyist makin' his living off this stuff now? You're goin' to quote his "research"? "

 

Yeah, Beavah, I'll defend John Lott. I didn't know much about him until I read the Wiki article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott

 

I see where he has been relentlessly attacked by the leftist elite because they hated his results, but I also read to the end of each accusation and found that he was vindicated and actually won a defamation lawsuit against one attacker.

Research is not 'fraudulent' just because you don't like the findings.

 

Lott proved he has never been paid by the gun industry or NRA. He does get paid now by FoxNews, but that only makes him not credible in a liberal's eyes.

 

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!

 

Beavah, is your curriculum vitae better than this:

 

"Lott studied economics at UCLA, receiving his B.A. in 1980, M.A. in 1982, and Ph.D. in 1984. Lott has held positions in law and economics at several institutions, including the Yale Law School, Stanford, UCLA, the Wharton Business School, Texas A&M University, and Rice University. Lott was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission (19881989). He spent five years as a visiting professor (199495) and as a fellow (199599) at the University of Chicago. Lott was a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (20012006). He left AEI for SUNY Binghamton.[10] From July 2007 to 2010, Lott was a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland Foundation at the University of Maryland, College Park.[11][12]"

 

Sorry Beavah, but I'll trust the academic who has spent years actually working to research unpopular conclusions and never has shied from his results just because of they didn't fit the elite academia media myth.

[packsaddle]

"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.

[Beavah]

Beavah, is your curriculum vitae better than this

 

Yah, well, actually...

 

What that CV tells me is that da fellow never made tenure and moved around a lot, apparently steadily downward. Also that da research he claims to be doin' is outside of his field, which supposedly is economics.

 

How much would you trust a fellow who got his M.D., then spent a year at Mayo, and then a year at Chicago General, then a couple years at East Illinois hospital, then at East Podunk clinic as a visiting fellow, then at da Special Interest Thinktank for Holistic Medicine, and now he's tryin' to tell you he's an expert on investment research and wants yeh to invest? Then when yeh look him up, there are multiple reputable researchers who have dismissed his work as fraudulent or just bad? I'm talkin' folks like da editor of Science saying "in most circles, this goes down as fraud."

 

Do yeh give him your money to invest it?

 

Just because folks agree with us or say things that we like to hear doesn't mean that they're always honorable, eh? We should not be afraid to hold those who agree with us up to scrutiny, and to back away from claims that don't match da same level of integrity that we ourselves would hold.

 

We have, after all, disproved a very public and recent claim of his without spendin' more than a few minutes on Google, eh?

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[packsaddle]

...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.