Are you pro-gun, or anti-gun?

[LongingSoul]

You are putting a lot of credence into signs. I do not think having an no weapon sign increases violence and makes it more likely for people to attack. Just because there is a sign doesn’t say anything about how much security there is, and there can still be armed security in such an area. I absolutely do not think that having an anti-gun sign at a school is going to encourage people to attack there. All of the places where these mass shootings took place where students were very familiar with the level of security there. They are not going to pay attention to whether there was a no-gun sign or not.

I never said that a no weapon sign increases security. I don’t know where you are getting these ideas. But I do think that an enforced anti-gun zone will reduce violence. If people were carrying firearms into the federal place that I worked, I think there would be much more violence. As it is, I have never heard of a shooting there.

There are not many adults in schools anyway. Allowing adults to carry concealed weapons is not going to prevent any of these episodes. Citizens greatly overestimate their ability to shoot a gun at a moving target in a high-pressure situation. The accuracy of the vast majority of people with guns is not very high, including law enforcement. It’s more likely that someone is killed in friendly fire than the perpetrator is shot. And the attacker always has the element of surprise. They are going to shoot people who have guns faster than a defender can take out their weapon and use it.

Yes I don’t know why the idea that a sign on its own has value one way or the other to a crazy gunmen. A sign is for “Wipe Feet Before Coming In” or “Wash Hands After Using the Bathroom”. That’s not a ‘security’ measure. That’s a courtesy issue. Security measures involve some sort of accountability, enforcement and consequence.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Gary Sheldrake Writes:

Gorgias replies:

Good Evening Gorgias:

Three quarters of gun homicide victims know their assailant, and people with guns in their home are at a greater risk than people without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home. Additionally, the risk of a suicide in the home is greater in homes where there are guns than for homes without guns.

You may find large bodies of data and studies supporting this in numerous places, but you may begin with Oxford Journals > Medicine > American Journal of Epidemiology Volume 160, Issue 10 Pp. 929-936.

Thank you,
Gary

Relying on the opinions of liberal doctors and using medical “experts” to compile statistics concerning CRIME. is like relying on statistics complied by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers to make decisions about gourmet cooking.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Good Evening Diane: I thought I might point out that the purpose of the Constitution is outlined in it’s preamble. It is a very short and simple preamble - only one sentence really, and in that sentence it says “promote the general Welfare.” This verifies what a person from another country just told you about our own constitution. I am a bit embarrassed.

Embarrassed indeed!

The Preamble to the Constitution is an introductory, succinct statement of the principles at work in the full text. Courts will not interpret the Preamble to confer any rights or powers not granted specifically in the Constitution.

The reference to “general welfare” in the Preamble has no bearing on the Constitution itself.

“General welfare” is mentioned in Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution"
"…and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . .”

Notice it refers to the welfare of the STATES…not the people.

People who were guaranteed the right to “pursue happiness” are capable of providing for their own general welfare.

 

[Rau]

Embarrassed indeed!

The Preamble to the Constitution is an introductory, succinct statement of the principles at work in the full text. Courts will not interpret the Preamble to confer any rights or powers not granted specifically in the Constitution.

The reference to “general welfare” in the Preamble has no bearing on the Constitution itself.

“General welfare” is mentioned in Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution"
"…and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . .”

Notice it refers to the welfare of the STATES…not the people.

People who were guaranteed the right to “pursue happiness” are capable of providing for their own general welfare.

The references to general welfare speak volumes about purpose and intent.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The references to general welfare speak volumes about purpose and intent.

There is only one reference to “general welfare” in the Constitution.

But you are right volumes can be spoken about the purpose and intent.

It is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the purpose and intent if it should ever be questioned. That should be done with a clear understanding of what our founders had in mind. Not with a current political or agenda driven motive.

 

[LongingSoul]

There is only one reference to “general welfare” in the Constitution.

But you are right volumes can be spoken about the purpose and intent.

It is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the purpose and intent if it should ever be questioned. That should be done with a clear understanding of what our founders had in mind. Not with a current political or agenda driven motive.

But who do you think ‘the founders’ were? Gods? Weren’t they just human beings dealing with the world as they knew it? The founders are no more or less human than any body of state authority that exists in any time of history. They were clear that the laws they were enacting as binding by the constitution were in service to the general welfare/common good… not despite the general welfare/common good. How could anyone possibly think that to be the case?

The Supreme Court likewise deals in human laws and how they pertain to the common good. The Supreme Court in the US does not in fact define universal rights… it is limited to deciding how the laws serve those universal rights under the conditions that exist at the time in history it lives in. If mass gun ownership is not serving the universal right of every citizen to ‘security of person’… it must act to restrict that right.

 

[Rau]

There is only one reference to “general welfare” in the Constitution.

But you are right volumes can be spoken about the purpose and intent.

It is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the purpose and intent if it should ever be questioned. That should be done with a clear understanding of what our founders had in mind. Not with a current political or agenda driven motive.

Absolutely. It is for the people to ensure that the provisions of the constitution retain their relevance in the current world, to evolve them when they do not, and thus to see that the constitution continues to serve its intent.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Relying on the opinions of liberal doctors and using medical “experts” to compile statistics concerning CRIME. is like relying on statistics complied by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers to make decisions about gourmet cooking.

The appliances most people cook on were designed as collaborative efforts between mechanical engineers and electrical engineers. Gourmet appliances are heavily engineered. On a side note, the data collected in that study was gathered from many sources. If you read it, you will see that data law from enforcement and many other sources were used.

Of course, when confronted with facts, it is a standard right wing/2nd amendment/militia type/Tea Party/Fox News tactic to dismiss it as the ravings of educated intellectuals.

…like being stupid is preferable.

…I wonder who buys that argument.

…smart people?

So , do you have some counterpoints or data to offer the discussion?

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

The Preamble to the Constitution is an introductory, succinct statement of the principles at work in the full text. Courts will not interpret the Preamble to confer any rights or powers not granted specifically in the Constitution.

It is an introductory statement that expresses the intent of the document. The original poster simply stated that the general welfare is in fact mentioned in this overarching declaration of intent.

The reference to “general welfare” in the Preamble has no bearing on the Constitution itself.

I imagine that having nothing to do with the Constitution is precisely why the framers of the Constitution took care to waste a good deal of time putting it in the preamble of the Constitution. Probably a wily diversion by it’s intellectual authors to obfuscate the real intent.

“General welfare” is mentioned in Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution"
"…and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . .”

Notice it refers to the welfare of the STATES…not the people.

What is such a thing as a United States without people? The idea itself is an abstract that firstly doesn’t exist or come into being without the imagination of people, and is in fact a construct whose purpose is to be a utility that serves to people. Therefore, the general welfare of the state and the people it serves are bound each to each. They correlate tangibly and directly. Also, “general welfare” implies welfare of the people, otherwise, the authors would have said “its welfare” if was pertaining the United States. There is no “general” to be applied in the singular.

People who were guaranteed the right to “pursue happiness” are capable of providing for their own general welfare.

I am of the opinion that we have civilizations as a matter of collective welfare and cooperation.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

But who do you think ‘the founders’ were? Gods? Weren’t they just human beings dealing with the world as they knew it? The founders are no more or less human than any body of state authority that exists in any time of history. They were clear that the laws they were enacting as binding by the constitution were in service to the general welfare/common good… not despite the general welfare/common good. How could anyone possibly think that to be the case?

No.

The founders of our government were educated, intelligent men who, when faced with establishing a government, took into consideration all the evils and failures of other governments to date.

They created an EXCEPTIONAL government. One in which the INDIVIDUAL was supreme.
A government that served its people. Not the other way around.

The Constitution they wrote LIMITED government and clearly delineated the minimal powers assigned to it.

Yes our founding fathers were human, but they were very exceptional men. What they started became the greatest nation the world has ever known…and that only took 200 years.

Our Constitution has only been amended 17 time since the original Bill of Rights. And one of those amendments was repealed because it was stupid. Other countries, like France, have completely re-writen their constitution over and over again.

You have to admit…someone did something right in 1776.

The Supreme Court likewise deals in human laws and how they pertain to the common good. The Supreme Court in the US does not in fact define universal rights… it is limited to deciding how the laws serve those universal rights under the conditions that exist at the time in history it lives in. If mass gun ownership is not serving the universal right of every citizen to ‘security of person’… it must act to restrict that right.

Let’s stop right here.

You have shown your ignorance of American government, policies, laws and branches of our government over and over on this thread. You have been corrected many times and you still continue.
I am a patient and understanding man who has a great respect for my fellow sailors in the Australian Navy. I would NEVER presume to opine or criticize the Australian form of government. I really have no idea what it is and could care less.

You have shown that you have NO concept of our Constitutional Republic form of government and now you PROVE you have no idea whatsoever of the purpose and duties of our Supreme Court.

You, Madam, are bordering on offending Zoltan…you don’t want to do that.
My suggestion is that you haunt another thread and discuss tasty recipes for Koala Stew.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Absolutely. It is for the people to ensure that the provisions of the constitution retain their relevance in the current world, to evolve them when they do not, and thus to see that the constitution continues to serve its intent.

…and your concept of the “intent of the Constitution” is…?

 

[zeloc]

I think murder is a greater issue than death. There the difference is still a lot, 653 compared to 14173, with the US having a little less than 5 times the murder rate. Yet this is just a comparison with two countries where many other differences exist besides gun laws. Yet, we have already discussed the uselessness of statistics in multi-variable analysis.

I would never say that statistics are useless, but I think you mean the uselessness of statistics in univariate analyses.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The appliances most people cook on were designed as collaborative efforts between mechanical engineers and electrical engineers. Gourmet appliances are heavily engineered. On a side note, the data collected in that study was gathered from many sources. If you read it, you will see that data law from enforcement and many other sources were used.

Of course, when confronted with facts, it is a standard right wing/2nd amendment/militia type/Tea Party/Fox News tactic to dismiss it as the ravings of educated intellectuals.

…like being stupid is preferable.

…I wonder who buys that argument.

…smart people?

So , do you have some counterpoints or data to offer the discussion?

Thank you,
Gary

Good Evening Garry:

I do have some counterpoints contribute. Thanks for the opportunity.

Your article “Oxford JournalsMedicine American Journal of Epidemiology Volume 160, Issue 10Pp. 929-936” is nothing more than a re-hash of false claims based on flawed studies by Arthur L. Kellermann, M.D back in the 1980’s.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Kellermann and associates claimed their “scientific research” proved that defending oneself or one’s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counterproductive, claiming “a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.”

This later became known as the “43 times fallacy”.

In 1993, in another peer-reviewed NEJM article (the research again heavily funded by the CDC), Kellermann attempted to show that guns in the home are a greater risk to the residents than to the assailants. Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Kellermann used the same flawed methodology and non-sequitur approach. He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected counties known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

Acutal dats showed that, gun ownership, the supposedly high-risk factor for homicide, was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being a murder victim. Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, a history of family violence, and living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than having a gun in the home.

In his 1993 article, Kellerman now arrived arrived at the “2.7 times fallacy.” In other words, they downsized their fallacy and claimed a family member is only 2.7 times more likely to kill another family member than an intruder. Yet, a fallacy is still a fallacy and, as such, it deserves no place in scientific investigations and peer-reviewed medical publications.

Countless errors invalidated the findings of the 1993 Kellermann study, just as they tainted those of 1986. Nevertheless, the errors have crept into and now permeate the liberal news media, the electronic media, and particularly, the medical journals, where they remain uncorrected and are repeated time and again as gospel. The media and gun-control groups still cling to the “43 times fallacy” and repeatedly invoke the erroneous mantra that “a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.” And, because the publication of the data (and their purported conclusions) supposedly come from “reliable” sources and objective medical researchers, they are given a lot of weight and credibility by practicing physicians, social scientists (who should know better), social workers, law-enforcement officials, and particularly gun-banning politicians.

Thanks
Zoltan

 

[GaryTaylor]

Statistically since 1970 the graph is pretty much the same with mass murder, except one small detail, the population increase which indicates a decrease in shootings. There are peaks such as in 93. So since 93 a decline is exhibited, nevertheless going back further is even more revealing in that it indicates the persistent path we have taken with mental heath.

Whats also different is the super information highway, the ability to track in graphic detail each and every atrocity, this adds to the focus and concern. Not a bad thing if placed in perspective. And the perspective is the path the USA has taken as a society and since 1970, which is indicative of the reasoning of the shootings.

We should be outraged with the acceptance of this lifestyle which promotes the mental heath which we further ignore and it culminates is various ways such as this. And to distract from this is to continue to do nothing about the real issue.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Good Evening Garry:

I do have some counterpoints contribute. Thanks for the opportunity.

Your article “Oxford JournalsMedicine American Journal of Epidemiology Volume 160, Issue 10Pp. 929-936” is nothing more than a re-hash of false claims based on flawed studies by Arthur L. Kellermann, M.D back in the 1980’s.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Kellermann and associates claimed their “scientific research” proved that defending oneself or one’s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counterproductive, claiming “a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.”

This later became known as the “43 times fallacy”.

In 1993, in another peer-reviewed NEJM article (the research again heavily funded by the CDC), Kellermann attempted to show that guns in the home are a greater risk to the residents than to the assailants. Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Kellermann used the same flawed methodology and non-sequitur approach. He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected counties known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

Acutal dats showed that, gun ownership, the supposedly high-risk factor for homicide, was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being a murder victim. Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, a history of family violence, and living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than having a gun in the home.

In his 1993 article, Kellerman now arrived arrived at the “2.7 times fallacy.” In other words, they downsized their fallacy and claimed a family member is only 2.7 times more likely to kill another family member than an intruder. Yet, a fallacy is still a fallacy and, as such, it deserves no place in scientific investigations and peer-reviewed medical publications.

Countless errors invalidated the findings of the 1993 Kellermann study, just as they tainted those of 1986. Nevertheless, the errors have crept into and now permeate the liberal news media, the electronic media, and particularly, the medical journals, where they remain uncorrected and are repeated time and again as gospel. The media and gun-control groups still cling to the “43 times fallacy” and repeatedly invoke the erroneous mantra that “a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.” And, because the publication of the data (and their purported conclusions) supposedly come from “reliable” sources and objective medical researchers, they are given a lot of weight and credibility by practicing physicians, social scientists (who should know better), social workers, law-enforcement officials, and particularly gun-banning politicians.

Thanks
Zoltan

Zoltan,

Could you provide some specific references to these supposed discreditings of Kellerman’s studies by reputable scientists? You make a lot of claims here but no references to back up those claims.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Good Evening Garry:

I do have some counterpoints contribute. Thanks for the opportunity.

Your article “Oxford JournalsMedicine American Journal of Epidemiology Volume 160, Issue 10Pp. 929-936” is nothing more than a re-hash of false claims based on flawed studies by Arthur L. Kellermann, M.D back in the 1980’s.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Kellermann and associates claimed their “scientific research” proved that defending oneself or one’s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counterproductive, claiming “a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.”

This later became known as the “43 times fallacy”.

In 1993, in another peer-reviewed NEJM article (the research again heavily funded by the CDC), Kellermann attempted to show that guns in the home are a greater risk to the residents than to the assailants. Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Kellermann used the same flawed methodology and non-sequitur approach. He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected counties known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

Acutal dats showed that, gun ownership, the supposedly high-risk factor for homicide, was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being a murder victim. Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, a history of family violence, and living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than having a gun in the home.

In his 1993 article, Kellerman now arrived arrived at the “2.7 times fallacy.” In other words, they downsized their fallacy and claimed a family member is only 2.7 times more likely to kill another family member than an intruder. Yet, a fallacy is still a fallacy and, as such, it deserves no place in scientific investigations and peer-reviewed medical publications.

Countless errors invalidated the findings of the 1993 Kellermann study, just as they tainted those of 1986. Nevertheless, the errors have crept into and now permeate the liberal news media, the electronic media, and particularly, the medical journals, where they remain uncorrected and are repeated time and again as gospel. The media and gun-control groups still cling to the “43 times fallacy” and repeatedly invoke the erroneous mantra that “a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.” And, because the publication of the data (and their purported conclusions) supposedly come from “reliable” sources and objective medical researchers, they are given a lot of weight and credibility by practicing physicians, social scientists (who should know better), social workers, law-enforcement officials, and particularly gun-banning politicians.

Thanks
Zoltan

Good Morning Zoltan: The floor is open for you to present data that shows that owning a gun does not increase one’s odds of being murdered or one’s odds of committing suicide, or one’s odds of having a firearm accident. You are also free to offer any sources and data you have that owning a gun in any way lessens the changes of being killed. Taking into account that you have a high level of disdain for people with academic and professional credentials, it would also be interesting to see who your sources might be. It seems you will in fact have to either cite educated and professionally qualified sources, which you have professed not to trust, or to cite uneducated and unqualified sources, which would simply be entertaining. There seems to be not bottom to the holes you dig for yourself Zoltan, but please do continue.

Also, be careful not to use sources such as practicing physicians, social scientists ,social workers, and law-enforcement officials, whereas by your own account, these are off limits. I can still use them of course, because I have not declared them invalid.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[iwillrisenow]

I’m not anti-gun…it’s not the ownership of guns itself but rather the policy argument that places someone else’s right to life in civilian society below another’s right to own a weapon. I’m not saying that everyone who owns a gun has this mentality, but many do. Even just saying “if so-and-so crossed me I’d pull out a decimal point such-and-such so fast”… that’s the beginning of it…in many other countries, there is largely some sense of your neighbor being your neighbor and not an enemy that needs to be annihilated at any cost, or even shocked into fear for his/her life (for many, I suspect just having the option to pull it out if need be is enough…but think about the implications behind this). Not sure if we ever really had that here in the US…or ever will. Too much fracturing, too many divisions…

In short: we need prayer

Lots of prayer.

On that note: youtube.com/watch?v=pk2LfTkdnUA

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Good Morning Zoltan: The data will of course keep flowing in this conversation. When you have finished finding sources that suggest gun ownership makes one safer, please start looking for data to refute the evidence that in experiments, men exposed to firearms had much higher testosterone levels and were three times more likely to engage in aggressive behavior than subjects who had not been exposed to guns.

Klinesmith et al, 2006.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Good Morning Zoltan: The data will of course keep flowing in this conversation. When you have finished finding sources that suggest gun ownership makes one safer, please start looking for data to refute the evidence that in experiments, men exposed to firearms had much higher testosterone levels and were three times more likely to engage in aggressive behavior than subjects who had not been exposed to guns.

Klinesmith et al, 2006.

Thank you,
Gary

I doubt that the cause and effect goes in that direction. It seems with this particular correlation, the causation is more likely to be from testosterone to gun ownership (and hence exposure).

 

[Rau]

…and your concept of the “intent of the Constitution” is…?

Let’s agree the constitution serves a good purpose. If you re-read my post, it may be evident that the point is not about its purpose, but rather what may be necessary to see that that purpose continues to be served over time.