now look up who reviewed it

2/28/2013 12:30:55 PM

Peer review doesn't necessarily mean an article is correct. Plenty of crocks of shit get peer reviewed and published.

I'm not reading 46 pages, but what I gather from the summary is that there aren't enough instances such as in Australia in order to prove that less guns = less violence. They claim that the burden of proof is on those wanting to take guns away. This isn't possible without experimentation. My argument is that in every case I've heard of, violence has at LEAST decreased marginally. It's never gotten worse.

Feel free to post key points and I'll give my rebuttal, but you can't just post an article from Harvard and say "This is from Harvard, so it's right".

2/28/2013 12:35:33 PM

i'm about halfway through it so far, i might finish up tonight. if not, probably this weekend.

2/28/2013 12:36:35 PM

^^^So everything in that last post is just "oh no nevermind" and now you want a list of names ey?

How deep again did you want to dig yourself?

Before I waste anymore time on this do you understand the peer-review process as it pertains to scientific journals versus legal journals?

^^Oh no, that's not the argument anymore. I told him to focus on content rather than source; he elected to go after source. There were infinitely better things to attack and he decided to make a douche of himself.

[Edited on February 28, 2013 at 12:41 PM. Reason : -]

2/28/2013 12:39:47 PM

that article is not peer reviewed

2/28/2013 12:44:22 PM

Arguing the validity of a god damn Harvard journal is about the stupidest tact one can take in an argument.

I hope for your sake you come up with something better regarding the content after you read it all weekend.

To think, all weekend to read 46 pages. Maybe you should check out of the thread making fun of GeniusBoy's mental capabilities.

Quote :

"that article is not peer reviewed"

-dtownral

Quote :

"that article is not peer reviewed"

-dtownral

Quote :

"that article is not peer reviewed"

-dtownral

Quote :

"that article is not peer reviewed"

-dtownral

Quote :

"that article is not peer reviewed"

-dtownral




[Edited on February 28, 2013 at 1:05 PM. Reason : -]

2/28/2013 12:49:43 PM

Quote :

"Oh no, that's not the argument anymore. I told him to focus on content rather than source; he elected to go after source. There were infinitely better things to attack and he decided to make a douche of himself."

Yeah but you also let him take you on a tangent rather than arguing the points in the article. So I'm asking what is in the article that you think would convince me to join your side.

2/28/2013 12:51:14 PM

I'd be more than happy to discuss that this evening (after work).

The peer-review thing is so infuriatingly stupid though... you're right; that fucking moron has me distracted with such a ludicrous position.

I know the term is vastly overused on this board, but it's truly a troll in hindsight.

[Edited on February 28, 2013 at 1:06 PM. Reason : -]

2/28/2013 12:56:00 PM

that was the easiest way to find out if it was peer reviewed

thanks

2/28/2013 1:25:21 PM

nvm

[Edited on February 28, 2013 at 4:16 PM. Reason : dont feed the troll]

2/28/2013 3:57:02 PM

From Washington Post today

Quote :

""The background-checks bill is expected to earn the most bipartisan support if a deal can be reach among two Democrats and two Republicans trying to draft a compromise"

Quote :

"Although there is general agreement on the proposal's broad outlines, Tom Coburn (R-Okla) is strongly opposed to adding language to the bill that would require gun owners to keep private transcriptional records of private firearms sales"

Apparently, Tom Coburn doesn't care who the guns are sold to, as long as it is done by private citizens. What is the point of any additional background check if it's 1) not universal across all states b)can be easily circumvented by buying a gun from a private party? Why even bother passing such bill? While we are at it, why don't we start allowing private citizens to re-sell alcohol and cigarettes to anyone they that wants to buy them, and don't require checking IDs? That will sure make ATF's job much easier, and maybe they won't need a full-time director or even any other full time staff.

From another article in the same paper

Quote :

"The NRA lobbied successfully for decades to block all attempts to computerize records of gun sales, arguing against any kind of national registry of firearm ownership. For that reason, ATF researchers in Martinsburg, WVa have to trace paths of guns used in crimes with an antiquated, laborious process dome mostly by hand. Instead of using a searchable computer database, the workers, using scotch tape and magnifying glasses, scour ink-smeared, yellowed index cards and faded ledger books from gun stores"

On the same page, a photograph of protesters. One is holding up a sign saying "CUOMO, COME TAKE CRIMINALS GUNS LEAVE MINE ALONE"

That's one way to drum up the business for private party sales.

3/1/2013 11:45:30 AM

Quote :

"While we are at it, why don't we start allowing private citizens to re-sell alcohol and cigarettes to anyone they that wants to buy them, and don't require checking IDs? "

What do you mean "start allowing?" You're already allowed. There is no legal requirement to check ID, but checking (and being able to prove you checked) ID is a defence against prosecution for sale to under age people.

3/1/2013 12:42:03 PM

i think he is saying whats the point of adding to the new changes

3/1/2013 12:48:23 PM

^^it is illegal for private party to sell any alcohol without obtaining a liquor licence first. In contrast, no licence is required for a private party to sell firearms here in VA. In addition, while felons are prohibited from owning a gun, the seller is not only legally responsible for checking the age of the buyer, not the criminal record, and thus it is not really illegal to sell the gun to a felon, as long as no questions are asked, or if the felon lies about having a criminal record. Here is the clause that deals with prohibitions:

Quote :

"M. Any person who purchases a firearm with the intent to (i) resell or otherwise provide such firearm to any person who he knows or has reason to believe is ineligible to purchase or otherwise receive from a dealer a firearm for whatever reason or (ii) transport such firearm out of the Commonwealth to be resold or otherwise provided to another person who the transferor knows is ineligible to purchase or otherwise receive a firearm, shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony. However, if the violation of this subsection involves such a transfer of more than one firearm, the person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of five years."

Quote :

"61-7-10. Display of deadly weapons for sale or hire; sale to prohibited persons; penalties. (b) (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly sell, rent, give or lend, or, where the person is other than a natural person, to knowingly permit an employee thereof to knowingly sell, rent, give or lend, any deadly weapon to a person prohibited from possessing same by any provision of this article. (2) Any person violating the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a felony, and, upon conviction thereof, ...61-7-10. — Display of deadly weapons for sale or hire; sale to prohibited persons; penalties. - West Virginia 61-7-10. — Display of deadly weapons for sale or hire; sale to prohibited persons; penalties. - West Virginia Code : (http://law.justia.com/westvirginia/codes/61/wvc61-7-10.html) "

As long as you claim ignorance, it will be on the prosecutor to prove that you KNEW the buyer was a felon. So they must show you were very close acquaintances, or his mug must have been on TV as "most wanted fugitive" or something to that sort.

I don't see how this qualifies gun sales as being "overregulated," at least here in state of Virginia. I think in NC sellers are required to check for pistol permit or CCP for handgun purchases, which is much more sensible, but again without tracking these sales the law is toothless until weapon is used in crime AND found. Long rifles are still a game for anyone over 18 that wants to stop by your garage sale with some cash.

3/1/2013 1:34:17 PM

Serious question: Is this GeniusXBoy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFGBCYtNpOg&feature=youtu.be

3/1/2013 4:51:45 PM

Yes

3/1/2013 4:52:56 PM

Ok, let's be real: prohibition of reselling alcohol has to do with the history of moonshining and the taxman wanting to take a cut.

You can moonshine and give the shit away quite legally. You just can't make profit on it tax-free.

3/1/2013 5:14:18 PM

There should be national registration and background checks for anyone wanting to voice their opinion or practice a religion

3/1/2013 5:58:36 PM

Quote :

"You can moonshine and give the shit away quite legally."

[no]

3/1/2013 6:08:57 PM

You can receive it as a gift legally, but whoever made it could still be busted.

3/1/2013 6:23:09 PM

To be fair, moonshining would be more like gunsmithing (or even 3-D printing guns) and then selling them. I think making guns still requires a permit in most states. Private party gun sales I was thinking of are more akin to buying booze at the ABC store and then re-selling it to an individual.

3/1/2013 6:31:01 PM

Quote :

"prohibition of reselling alcohol has to do with the history of moonshining and the taxman wanting to take a cut. You can moonshine and give the shit away quite legally. You just can't make profit on it tax-free"

It is perfectly legal to make and gift your own beer or wine. It is illegal to go the further steps and make moonshine.
It's not an issue of taxes, it's because distilling can be very dangerous and result in explosions and out of control fires. Not to mention, moonshiners have been known to shortcut processes in their distilling and can create poison that can cause a whole host of problems including blindness and lead poisoning.

3/1/2013 6:36:31 PM

Quote :

" I think making guns still requires a permit in most states. "

wrong again. you can make guns for yourself all you want. you can't sell them, though.

3/2/2013 12:26:05 AM

That interview was painful to watch...

3/2/2013 12:42:10 AM

It was, because piers was asking dumb questions and genie was giving dumb answers.

It's a shame because there's any number of twwers that could have sensibly gone up against piers and defended the 2nd amendment, or said something meaningful and intelligent.

[Edited on March 2, 2013 at 1:59 AM. Reason : ]

3/2/2013 1:52:53 AM

^^i should have clarified, I meant make them for purposes of selling to others, hence the first sentence. You are right about making them for your own use (with some limitations), this is where 3D printing issue will come as very disruptive once the technology gets caught up. Not everyone will buy a 20,000 CNC mill to make firearms if they can't sell for profit, but people are much more likely to get a 2,000 printer to make weapons for personal use.

Continuing the issue of BG checks, here is a video of my state senator trolling gun sellers at a "show"

Quote :

"Are you not a felon? At least this week?...You don't look like you are ready to go do a bank heist or something"

What a fucking joke. Gun sales in VA are about as heavily regulated as prostitution in Thailand.

[Edited on March 2, 2013 at 3:47 AM. Reason : .]

3/2/2013 3:45:40 AM

Several municipalities are now considering passing laws requiring gun ownership. While I loathe Diane Feinstein and what she's trying to do, this is not the way to go about making a stand. I'm against this for the same reason I'm against Obamacare - the government cannot force me to buy anything, whether it be insurance, or guns.

3/9/2013 8:20:54 AM

^ In addition to that, if someone isn't comfortable owning a gun, then they shouldn't own a gun. They won't practice with it, they won't learn how to safely operate it, and such a law then burdens them with liability for that gun that they otherwise would not have chosen to own. Bad idea all around.

3/9/2013 9:09:47 AM

"Gabby Gifford's husband buys AR-15"

Why in the hell is this a headline on CNN? Who gives a shit?

3/12/2013 7:43:37 AM

Why do you give a shit? Why are you reading cnn.com?

3/12/2013 8:13:14 AM

Really surprised at how little analysis there was. Most of the tables are severely lacking in trends and correlations, which is one of the first things that you would want to spot. Also, they use the crime rates in Russia to weight the data set throughout the article. No timeline discussions. Another problem with it is that they leave United States data out when it might hurt the argument, but it would be nice to have that data in every table as a reference.

Lot's of issue with it, leaves a lot lacking, but I will look at it again.

[Edited on March 13, 2013 at 12:18 AM. Reason : s]

3/13/2013 12:18:07 AM

AWB = toast

3/19/2013 8:48:40 PM

lololol

3/19/2013 9:07:01 PM

LIBERALS WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS RAAAWWWRRRR

3/19/2013 9:40:53 PM

just the ones that look scary

3/19/2013 9:53:01 PM

It's my understanding that there are still at least two bills heading to the Senate floor that will ban normal capacity mags. Those need to be shot down too.

3/20/2013 12:57:12 AM

The AWB was the "public option" portion of the gun control bill. Something thrown out there that the GOP could shoot down and declare victory over so that the rest of the bill can pass.

3/20/2013 8:09:34 AM

The fate of the planet is in the hands of a bunch of retards I wouldn't trust with a potato gun.

3/20/2013 3:51:07 PM

Quote :

"AWB = toast"

3/20/2013 8:40:31 PM

your excitement is unwarranted

3/20/2013 9:13:01 PM

Eh, I know. It'll keep popping back out of the grave to attach itself to random bills, plus we have the mag limits and awful background check bill to slay.

One small victory at least.

3/20/2013 9:33:26 PM

hahaha

you're going to be so sad

3/20/2013 10:31:23 PM

more like slightly inconvenienced

3/20/2013 10:34:05 PM

this is JK we're talking about

he'll post 50 angry gifs

3/20/2013 10:38:45 PM

oic

3/20/2013 10:39:12 PM

In the more enlighten parts of the world, people cant just go out and get a gun, and they are OK with it.


This civil liberties shit over a fucking weapon is total crap.

3/21/2013 12:16:02 AM

In more "enlightened" parts of the world, the individual right to own and carry firearms isn't written into their constitution either. Repeal the second amendment, and then you can say it isn't a civil liberties issue.

3/21/2013 7:10:21 AM

I was watching Pierce Morgan last night....holy shit what an idiot! First he kept interchanging the use of assault rifle and assault weapon, which we all know there is a huge difference. he also fails to understand the the last AWB was a complete failure and the current proposed laws for magazine capacity limits are completely un-enforceable. this whole thing is dumb.

3/21/2013 8:16:07 AM

do you mean interchanging assault weapon/rifle and automatic weapon/rifle?

3/21/2013 8:34:21 AM

who is Pierce Morgan?

3/21/2013 8:36:44 AM