TexasCHLforum.com

Great info to debate antis.

http://cavalierknight.com/pages/harvard.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What an absolutely fantastic study. This needs to be spread far and wide, especially among those friends and acquaintances who are anti-gun.

baldeagle wrote:What an absolutely fantastic study. This needs to be spread far and wide, especially among those friends and acquaintances who are anti-gun.

...and who may be contemplating suicide.

Reading that almost made me throw up. Behind the great intentions of the NRA, they are still a special interest group. That smelled of propaganda from the first sentence. Is it so hard to fight this fight without sounding like big brother? The emails I received from the Obama campaign (after registering for that dinner) sounded just like this.

karl wrote:Reading that almost made me throw up. Behind the great intentions of the NRA, they are still a special interest group. That smelled of propaganda from the first sentence. Is it so hard to fight this fight without sounding like big brother? The emails I received from the Obama campaign (after registering for that dinner) sounded just like this.

Could you be more specific? --it's a summary, not written in academic language, but what about it do you consider propaganda? Where does it misrepresent the analysis in the paper itself? One of the primary conclusions is self-evident from reading the news, even the biased and slanted coverage from our "news" media: most shootings, the vast majority, are criminals shooting each other. Something else that should be self-evident is that denying those with criminal intent a particular weapon --a gun-- doesn't alter their criminal intent, it just alters the weapons they use (so in England there are a lot of stabbings). Taking guns out of the equation, with everything else equal, can only empower the most brutish, as those with less physical power will have no effective means of defense --hence the phase, God made men, Sam Colt made them equal.

karl wrote:Reading that almost made me throw up. Behind the great intentions of the NRA, they are still a special interest group. That smelled of propaganda from the first sentence. Is it so hard to fight this fight without sounding like big brother? The emails I received from the Obama campaign (after registering for that dinner) sounded just like this.

There is no question that the NRA is a special interest group. That's why I joined them. I also belong to the American Model Yachting Association because I have a special interest in sailing and racing remote control sailboats. I expect both organizations to promote their specific special interest area.

The "big brother" comment piqued my curiosity. I personally equate big brother references to governmental intervention, especially into areas where it should not and often has no legal basis to intrude. I don't see anything in either the website or the article the looked like big brother to me so perhaps I'm missing something.

I loved the article. I've taken the approach of asking questions when having "discussions" with anti's rather than trying to simply make statements. The article gives me a lot of insight into areas where I could form questions to direct those discussions. I'm looking forward to my next chance to use the material.

The web site is a bit over the top, but the paper reads as well researched and documented... I certainly found myself agreeing with most of it..

Link to full paper here: http://cavalierknight.com/pdf/gun.contr ... 0.No.2.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In the late 1990s, England moved from stringent controls to a
complete ban of all handguns and many types of long guns.
Hundreds of thousands of guns were confiscated from those
owners law‐abiding enough to turn them in to authorities.
Without suggesting this caused violence, the ban’s ineffectiveness
was such that by the year 2000 violent crime had so increased
that England and Wales had Europe’s highest violent
crime rate, far surpassing even the United States. Today, English
news media headline violence in terms redolent of the
doleful, melodramatic language that for so long characterized
American news reports.

Good, accessible review article. I really appreciate that this is a written in English, instead of in statistical Greek.

The paper asks the right question (the association of gun prevalence and murder/suicide rates) versus the misdirected hoopla about "gun violence" rates.

AndyC wrote:Read the paper itself then - not the website, which has nothing to do with the paper's authors.

Thanks for the link, JJVP - that's some fascinating stuff

Thanks. I know that showing that to an anti will do absolutely nothing to change their minds, but one can only hope. If we can save at least one, it will be worth it.
Unfortunately the antis are controlled by emotions. It is what they feel that is true. Facts have nothing to do with anything.

JJVP wrote: I know that showing that to an anti will do absolutely nothing to change their minds, but one can only hope. If we can save at least one, it will be worth it. Unfortunately the antis are controlled by emotions. It is what they feel that is true. Facts have nothing to do with anything.

I agree, JJVP. I doubt many anti-gun folks will change their position. But having sensible evidence like what is presented in the article is useful to discuss with "independent voters". It paints the anti-gun folks as the extremists that they are.

Here is an independent link to the article that avoids the cavalier knight website : http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/org ... online.pdf .

J.R.@A&M wrote:

JJVP wrote: I know that showing that to an anti will do absolutely nothing to change their minds, but one can only hope. If we can save at least one, it will be worth it. Unfortunately the antis are controlled by emotions. It is what they feel that is true. Facts have nothing to do with anything.

I agree, JJVP. I doubt many anti-gun folks will change their position. But having sensible evidence like what is presented in the article is useful to discuss with "independent voters". It paints the anti-gun folks as the extremists that they are.

That's sort of what I was getting at, I suppose I came of a little stronger than I intended.

Regarding the NRA (of which I am a grateful member) and big brother: I think that just like the enemies of gun control we combat, the NRA, through its newsletters, updates, and political statements tell their members not only what to think, but HOW to think. It's a large organization, just like government, that wants to tell me what is good for me.

I don't disagree with the assessment, just the NRA's presentation of it from the provided web page.

On the bottom of the page it says, "Copyright 2011, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683".