Another week, another school shooting

[smooth]

CorvallisBMW, you ninja-deleted your post. Why? It was funny. You asked a question, I answered it. Dr. West was a professor first. At any major universities, profs are expected to spend a good chunk of their time chasing grant money through publishing and research. This isn't bad, it's just a fact. Like any system where you're expected to chase dollars, motivations that aren't entirely altruistic can become a factor.

True for non-tenured professors. Less true for tenured professors. But it's not an inappropriate point to make. Goes both ways of course and is a sad state of affairs in many scholars' opinions. But to be clear, personal monetary enrichment doesn't occur on the heels of grants.

[marshallnoise]

I'm quoting this so that you can't go back later and delete it, because it's the single dumbest things I've ever heard you say.
Yes, that's called the research process. Submit a research topic, investigate and gather evidence, form a hypothesis, have your work reviewed to ensure it doesn't contain errors and meets the high standards required, and then it is published. As opposed you your modus operandi of endless conjecture backed up by more conjecture. Name 1 single wealthy professor. Go ahead, I'll wait here for you. Yep, that's the point of peer review. It ensures you can't publish BS, because you have to have it reviewed by other experts in the field. If it doesn't hold water, it's rejected.

Tell me, how many peer-reviewed papers have you had published?

Have you ever heard of group-think? Do you think that the academic community is incapable of having an agenda? Not only do they have an agenda, they routinely box out people who disagree with the "conventional thought." Other academics even!

http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/academic-leadership/how-to-rid-your-meetings-of-groupthink/

Here is one example of the failure of peer review as an institution. Junk science and junk statistics become credible because it only has to be published once.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34518/title/Opinion--Scientific-Peer-Review-in-Crisis/

Here is another: http://blogs.plos.org/speakingofmedi...eview-process/

And I think that professors tend to do pretty well on the whole. Here is an example from University of Michigan. http://www.annarbor.com/news/pay-com...against-peers/

[smooth]

Make what illegal? Buying a gun for someone else? It already is...EVERYWHERE.

Exactly, but the law that already exists can't be enforced unless we make it a strict liability issue.

You and us are in agreement: we want to strengthen laws that already exist just like you do.

You see, if alcohol sales were contingent on the honor system, where people could just claim that they didn't know the purchaser was a minor, or cigarette sales, or sex even, then people would just say, "hey, I didn't know" and all the regulations about minors doing those things become futile.

But as soon as you require someone to actually verify the purchaser, or that the person doing the behavior, is legally entitled to do the thing you're trying to regulate, then you get increased compliance.

Sure, some minors still buy alcohol and drink, some still buy cigarettes and smoke, and some still have sex with people they shouldn't, but that isn't grounds for eliminating the requirement that people verify. No one, except in here, argues that since you can't maintain 100% compliance of the law that you should then eliminate the law.

Who here thinks that robberies still occur in spite of the laws prohibiting robbery? How many of you who believe that go on to claim that we should eliminate laws prohibiting robbery?

Of course not.

As soon as you require that people actually walk into a gun store and a record is made of the sale then you tighten the hole through which [i]some[i/] illegally procured guns make it out onto the streets to be used in the commission of a crime.


You've pointed out that laws already exist on the books preventing straw purchases. Explain how you think those laws are currently enforced?

[ajhostetter]

CorvallisBMW, you ninja-deleted your post. Why? It was funny. You asked a question, I answered it. Dr. West was a professor first. At any major universities, profs are expected to spend a good chunk of their time chasing grant money through publishing and research. This isn't bad, it's just a fact. Like any system where you're expected to chase dollars, motivations that aren't entirely altruistic can become a factor.

[CorvallisBMW]

Make what illegal? Buying a gun for someone else? It already is...EVERYWHERE.

Not at guns shows: http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome...udy/index.html

“Illegal transactions were often conducted entirely out in the open,” said Garen Wintemute, professor of emergency medicine at UC Davis School of Medicine and a leading researcher on firearm violence who authored the report. “The sense of impunity among sellers and purchasers in these cases was remarkable.”

Current laws require licensed retailers to see a buyer’s identification and require buyers to complete a lengthy Firearms Transaction Record, which certifies that buyers are purchasing a gun for themselves and that they are not prohibited from owning a gun. Licensed retailers also must submit this information for a background check and keep a record of the purchase. Unlicensed vendors or individual attendees at gun shows, however, are not required to follow these same federal safeguards.

Undocumented private party gun sale transactions account for as many as 40 percent of all gun sales,” said Wintemute. “They are quick and convenient, and their anonymity attracts those who put privacy at a premium. These same attributes make private-party gun sales a principal option for a felon or other prohibited person.”

Gun shows are a leading source of guns used in criminal violence in Northern California, the United States, Mexico and Canada

[smooth]

85% of guns used in crimes that were recovered by law enforcement were purchased at least once in their purchase/sales history by private party and a private party transaction. Therefore, private party transactions are responsible for 85% of criminals receiving guns.

Fucking flawed logic on so many levels.

You're correct in asserting that sentence is a logical fallacy. However, you made that statement, not the article. Thank you for pointing out your own flawed logic. You're getting better at self-evaluation so at least some of my posting hasn't been futile.

[ParsedOut]

The same way you limit the purchase of alcohol to underage minors. Make it illegal everywhere, regardless of local jurisdiction. Make it not just against the law, but socially unacceptable as well. Put measures in place, such as waiting periods, that prevent people from making impulse buys or just snagging someone off the street to buy it for them. Will it stop 100% of straw purchases? Of course not, and no one is suggesting that it would. but it would help, and if you're unwilling to make even small improvements, then you're guilty by association.


Because I have a different opinion than you and post facts that don't fit in with your dogmatic views? Please, tell me more about how everyone you disagree with has zero credibility.

Make what illegal? Buying a gun for someone else? It already is...EVERYWHERE.

I say you have no credibility because you've already proven you don't fully understand the logistics of what you're preaching. Check out the 15 round thread if you've already forgotten how ignorant to the facts you really are. I'm done wasting my time with you people, keep demanding change that will accomplish absolutely nothing. The heart of the violence problem is a mixture of gang related and children being raised by absent parents. Take the gun out of the equation you still have fucked up people with fucked up motivations, violence will still happen. At any rate, I'll leave the bickering about semantics and vague "solutions" to you.

[marshallnoise]

I'll just wait here while you get past the first page...

False premise. The whole article hinges on a misinterpretation of the statistic.

[marshallnoise]

You doubt. You can't prove they can't be figured out.

An opinion without evidence is conjecture.

Do you even pay attention to what you write?

The article quoted, and read by me, effectively states this:

85% of guns used in crimes that were recovered by law enforcement were purchased at least once in their purchase/sales history by private party and a private party transaction. Therefore, private party transactions are responsible for 85% of criminals receiving guns.

Fucking flawed logic on so many levels. The article does not state that 85% of guns used in crimes were sold from a private party to the criminal, yet the whole article builds it's whole basis on a fact which doesn't exist.

Once again, here is the quote:

Some 85% of all guns used in crimes and then recovered by law-enforcement agencies have been sold at least once by private parties.

Loose correlation, not causation. The rest of the article is basically moot because the whole premise is false. In this instance, the baby should be thrown out with the bath water because there isn't a fucking baby in the tub.

[ajhostetter]

Name 1 single wealthy professor. Go ahead, I'll wait here for you.

You guys are funny. That said ^ Cornell West.

[CorvallisBMW]

That is merely a statistic and is meaningless.

I'm quoting this so that you can't go back later and delete it, because it's the single dumbest things I've ever heard you say.

And as academics usually do, it is used to posit a theory, write an essay, get published in a peer-reviewed paper

Yes, that's called the research process. Submit a research topic, investigate and gather evidence, form a hypothesis, have your work reviewed to ensure it doesn't contain errors and meets the high standards required, and then it is published. As opposed you your modus operandi of endless conjecture backed up by more conjecture.

to get more money for grants and other pet projects

Name 1 single wealthy professor. Go ahead, I'll wait here for you.

all the while perpetrating another ill-conceived notion that is cited infinitely because an academic who is peer reviewed published it and they must be right, they are learn-ed!

Yep, that's the point of peer review. It ensures you can't publish BS, because you have to have it reviewed by other experts in the field. If it doesn't hold water, it's rejected.

Tell me, how many peer-reviewed papers have you had published?

[CorvallisBMW]

The law doesn't stop people from committing crimes. Kids still drink. Often stealing from their parent's stash. Just like guns get into criminal hands.

I don't know how many more ways I can say this:

Will it stop 100% of straw purchases? Of course not, and no one is suggesting that it would. but it would help.

What is dogmatic is expecting that a new law will make things better. History has already proven that it doesn't.

How do you figure that? Please show me your "proof".

[smooth]

I'll just wait here while you get past the first page...

[z31maniac]

Where are those stats? How is it determined that a legally purchased gun was sold to a criminal via private party sale? :loco: I doubt that those statistics can even be figured out without a hell of a lot of conjecture.

You doubt. You can't prove they can't be figured out.

An opinion without evidence is conjecture.

Do you even pay attention to what you write?

[marshallnoise]

It doesn't say in the article. For clarification, I hold a doctorate in criminology, law, and society from UC Irvine. I teach criminal justice for SDSU. Before that I taught for Oregon State. I've testified for Congress on this topic, been a member of multiple President's commissions researching gun violence (under various administrations, not just democratic ones), and I present my work in various peer reviewed journals and conferences. When I speak in front of an audience, it's a mix of who knows what politically but LEO and health practitioners listen to and respect my expertise. I create hundreds of officers each year that patrol our streets and I help train them to do their jobs safely and correctly.

That's what I do for a paycheck. Sometimes I waste my time in these threads because they go on for years running around the same arguments. Occasionally I pop in to correct the nonsense that gets slung around. But most of the time I just use this site to work on my E30. My time away from the keyboard is where I address the issues that you are just bloviating about.

If you're interested in actually learning something from a recognized expert, then read this:

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp/publications/WintemuteBragaKennedyPPGS.pdf

it's only a few pages long.


It's simple really...a gun gets recovered at a crime scene and the feds go talk to the last person who bought it on record.

You can't fucking read your own article, can you?

Some 85% of all guns used in crimes and then recovered by law-enforcement agencies have been sold at least once by private parties.

That is merely a statistic and is meaningless. And as academics usually do, it is used to posit a theory, write an essay, get published in a peer-reviewed piece of toilet paper, to get more money for grants and other pet projects, all the while perpetrating another ill-conceived notion that is cited infinitely because an academic who is peer reviewed published it and they must be right, they are learn-ed!

Correlation (and it is a stretch to call this a correlation) is not causation.