Another week, another school shooting

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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?

[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]

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.

[Farbin Kaiber]

^It comes from the publishing rights on the books you sell from what you 'learned' while using grant monies.

[marshallnoise]

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.

Wow dude. The author, hopefully you are one of them, should have read the 85% quote and immediately said, "There is nothing to go on here, oh well." Instead, they used a quote, misinterpreted it and then proceeded to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

For anyone who read the article, they would know that "Some 85% of all guns used in crimes and then recovered by law-enforcement agencies have been sold at least once by private parties" is the basis for restricting private party gun transactions. Without that piece of misused information, the whole article is an opinion piece based in something other than reality.

You got caught and now you are back tracking. Its ok. We forgive you, now go work on your e30.

[smooth]

LOL

(that was supposed to be in reference to getting rich from book royalties but it equally applies to the post directly after)

no one got caught and I'm not an author of that study.
you asked for how to calculate the amount of guns used in crimes that were bought through private party sale.
it's simple: pick up a gun at a crime scene and go ask the last registered owner what happened to the gun after they owned it.
the rest is math.

the stuff you're spouting about those guns being responsible for 85% of criminals owning guns is conjecture and wholly made up by you--no one else--just you.

as far as restricting private party transactions, they already are in California. So unless you are breaking the law it's a non-issue for you personally.

[marshallnoise]

^It comes from the publishing rights on the books you sell from what you 'learned' while using grant monies.

And changing a couple words in an edition of a book for a revision to rape students at the book store, banning older editions from the classroom and creating an educational cartel.

For the record, I believe education to be good. But like politics, a huge grain of salt must be consumed because indoctrination is the goal.

[marshallnoise]

Lol

Sucks, doesn't it?

[ParsedOut]

In response to smooth, forgot to quote.

I've said it before, I'm all for the universal background check concept as are the majority of Americans. That would in theory limit criminals easily getting their hands on guns, agreed as well. Prices on the underground market would explode, luckily criminals are usually swimming in I'll gotten funds, so there's that. Back on topic, how do you create a universal background check without creating a national gun registry? You can't unless you just want to throw another gun law put there that can't be enforced. A gun registry is not something we as Americans should lay down and accept. In history confiscation always follows registration.

So there's my non ad hominem response to your question, if you care to share the same respect I'll continue the discussion but I doubt it'll be fruitful for anyone involved, they never are.

In response to your "remove robbery law" comment, there you go again comparing an action with the tool. If you can't tell the difference I can't help you.