Gun Control Thread- Should we?

One of the more powerful statements I have heard:

If only the first victim, Adam Lanza's mother, had been a gun owner, she could have stopped this before it started.

It's certainly one of the more obtuse. If only she had been a better mother.....

Actually they are all descendents of crimmnals.

Original Aussies, yes. There have been immigrants going there from the UK since the 1960's.

There is no mention of Lee and/or Suardi or their work in the first link and the second makes some vague rebuttal that there may have been a lag between the implementation and the effect.

However it does make this comment you obviously overlooked:

It does not appear that the Australian experience with gun buybacks is fully replicable in the United States. Levitt provides three reasons why gun buybacks in the United States have apparently been ineffective: (a) the buybacks are relatively small in scale (b) guns are surrendered voluntarily, and so are not like the ones used in crime; and (c) replacement guns are easy to obtain.

Once again you try to bluster or bluff your way through an argument you can't validate.

Thank you for actually reading a link.

The first link I posted does not mention Lee and Suardi but it directly rebuts points made in the Lee and Suardi paper. The second article actually critiques Lee and Suardi more deeply than you indicate. The second article, in nice academic prose, essentially calls Lee and Suardi fools. Thus both articles I posted refute Lee and Suardi.

But you are right - the Harvard article I posted says that the Aussie experience is not fully replicable in the USA. I hinted at this in a post above. But the article does point to positive gains from the Aussie experience which we Americans can learn from and, if not "fully" replicate, still enact to our betterment.

I'm not trying to "bluff" through anything here. I have provided sound research and a logical argument which can be used to help us find our way out of our current gun regulations, which clearly are not working.

One of the more powerful statements I have heard:

If only the first victim, Adam Lanza's mother, had been a gun owner, she could have stopped this before it started.

Yeah, the whole situation in CT makes arguments of the type, "If only someone else had a gun...", even more ludicrous than they already were.

Yeah, the whole situation in CT makes arguments of the type, "If only someone else had a gun...", even more ludicrous than they already were.

Would it make the statement easier to comprehend, do you think, if it were more accurately stated as "If only someone had a gun and were able to use it" instead of couching it in an obviously loaded (no pun intended) way?

And if we're going to throw out soundbite style quotes, I like this one from US News:

With just one single exception, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the United States in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.

From the point of self defense, I am exceedingly self absorbed or as I prefer to look at it: Proactive.

I live in a remote, high crime area. There is no way that cops are getting to my location, should I need their help, in under 30 minutes at best. I choose to have a defensive solution to hand.

I could understand your stance if I was out brandishing my handgun and big pimpin'.

Tell me what you think the bigger picture is? Kumbayah around the firepit with marshmallows? Eff that!
and i never said gun control meant turning in all guns. the assault weapons are just that. there is absolutely no need for them. in the end, the people that do the right thing will be suffering. but i guarantee you will not suffer as much as those kids did

Would it make the statement easier to comprehend, do you think, if it were more accurately stated as "If only someone had a gun and were able to use it" instead of couching it in an obviously loaded (no pun intended) way?

No. Your revision does not make the statement easier to comprehend. It also does not make the statement any less ludicrous.

It is not difficult to see that if the problem is that there are too many guns, adding guns is not a solution, whether people know how to use those guns or not.

I live in the 21st century and thus am not swayed by this 18th century argument of the gun lobby.

No. Your revision does not make the statement easier to comprehend. It also does not make the statement any less ludicrous.

It is not difficult to see that if the problem is that there are too many guns, adding guns is not a solution, whether people know how to use those guns or not.

I live in the 21st century and thus am not swayed by this 18th century argument of the gun lobby.

You're thinking of the musket lobby. How are you defining 'too many guns'? I have one, it has always been exactly the right amount, I wouldn't presume to tell anyone how many they should have, and that amount includes zero.

Please do me the favor of reading this (http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/08/some-notes-on-claims-about-australias.html) rehash of the data by John Lott.

I appreciate your thoughts, Lotus, even though I may not agree.

One of the more powerful statements I have heard:

If only the first victim, Adam Lanza's mother, had been a gun owner, she could have stopped this before it started.

Actually its pretty stupid because its his mother.