gun ownership and uncontrollable anger go hand in hand....

[Tom Servo]

Then, under Lautenberg, those same otherwise functional officers with a small DV charge on their record could no longer carry a gun, off, or ON the job.

One of the disturbing aspects of the Lautenberg amendment was that it was retroactive. It applied to offenses that occurred before the amendment's passage.

[johnwilliamson062]

I have a study for you:
Hook published researchers up to a polygraph machine and ask them if they have ever manipulated a study in order to qualify/satisfy for current or future funding.

[Handloader109]

The thing tat gets me when I read this is that the liberal side also actively pushes for lost rights, I.e. voting rights, be returned to felons once they are released. You guys need to get this killed one way or another. We can't tell who is angry and if passed, every gun owner will be an angry person if they voice any opinion anywhere anytime

[44 AMP]

I lost what little respect I had for "studies" when I became personally involved in one.

A "risk assessment" for industrial safety. Workers given a multipage question form, things like, "do you wear PPE (hearing protection, hard hat, etc.) Do you wear your seat belt, do you drive within 5mph of the speed limit, things like that.

None of the questions mentioned guns, hunting, or anything even remotely like that.

ONE question asked "were you, or any member of your family in a physical fight within the past year?", and that was the only question of its type, at all.

When the results came back, surprise! One of their recommendations, to reduce the amount of risk in our lives was (and I quote,)

"Avoid Handguns."

I suppose, (as the study under discussion posits) that being a gun owner filled me with an "uncontrollable rage" over this out of the blue "recommendation".

I questioned it, (actually more of a rant) to my boss. My argument was, that since they gave us such a totally off the wall recommendation (avoid handguns), without so much as asking a single question about them, or about any gun related thing at all, the credibility of ALL their other suggestions was suspect.

He agreed. And so did his boss. And, while I never knew for sure, I think their boss did too, as that company's contract to do studies was never renewed.
You can do anything you want with a study, and then claim any conclusion you want, based on that study, its ALL a matter of where you set your parameters.

A study can show that over 98% of violent criminals ate bread, or a bread product within 30 days prior to committing the violent act. Based on that, the argument for banning bread sounds reasonable, don't you think?

[Koda94]

The most notorious anti gun statistic is "Protection or peril? An analysis of firearms related deaths in the home." (New Engl J Med 1986. 314: 1557-60.) by doctors Arthur Kellermann and Don Reay. Because of this we now have your health insurance asking you if you own guns (another form of registration especially for those covered under the ACA). This is the statistic that cites your 43% more likely to kill a family member, friend, or acquaintence, than to kill someone in self-defense or commit suicide.

So now basically not only are we 43% more likely to harm ourselves, were more likely to have uncontrollable anger issues. Ive debated the 43% statistic and pointed out the flaws but they just don't want to hear it in favor of their bias when presented with a question about accuracy they didn't even want to explore it it flat out gets ignored, yet when I suggested defensive gun use statistics they tear it apart with a level of detail that Einstein would convey.


If these types of studies are whats influencing those holding the middle ground on gun control/rights...
all I know is that with continuing propaganda like this we are doomed for keeping our guns rights based on biased and false studies like these.

[Tom Servo]

The most notorious anti gun statistic is "Protection or peril? An analysis of firearms related deaths in the home."

It bugs me that Kellerman's studies are still being quoted by the media. He "lost" a significant amount of raw data and revised his numbers a few times in the face of criticism. There's a detailed analysis here and a good rebuttal here.

[Koda94]

yup,

every second amendment supporter should have http://guncite.com/ bookmarked.

kellermans statistics are flawed, if we applied the same logic to any item they would have to be banned too (cars, alcohol, kitchen knives...)

[doofus47]

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/0806....2008.889.html
"Bumper stickers reveal link to road rage"

You're welcome.

Good luck fighting the UBC, the democrats here in Colorado trundle out family members of various mass shootings whenever the committee votes come up. Unsurprisingly, the repeals have been dying in partisan-controlled committee.

"Um, sooo, making up Universal laws to cover statistical outliers helps strengthen the common good how??"

[SPEMack618]

I spent some times working my way through the annals of the VA hospital network.

At every point, the administrators seemed more concerned with whether or not I owned handguns than the chunks of Humvee that were still in my knee.

[A pause for the COZ]

I always said its not a matter of how. its a matter of when.
As soon as they get a majority in Metro areas they can vote away our rights at a whim.
And they will.

[Koda94]

Quick reply befor I turn in for the night....

The bill passed through the senate today with flying colors. It will head to the house, and if passed there our newly appointed step in govenor for the recently ousted Kitshaber will certainly sign it.


What really bothers me most about this bill is not one Oregon citizen will get to vote on it. The bill declares an "emergency" so all it needs is a majority of senators to sign it. Last election, Oregon (gun owners) voted in a democratic majority and all but one support more gun control. Further more this bill promoted by Sen Prozanski on lies and bogus statistics such as the article in the first post of this thread.

[doofus47]

How do you guys define "emergency"? Is it just "whatever we call 'emergency'" on a per-vote basis?

[Koda94]

not certain how the emergency clause works except it means the public does not get to vote. Essentially this means an email/phone/mail campaign by the citizens to influence our senators who vote to pass or reject the bill in the Senate and House.



And so what this means is the fight is on I think IMO that the majority of Oregonians if they had the chance to vote would reject this law. We did exactly that in the last 2 elections. What’s happening is the Democratic majority has lost touch with conservative rural Oregon many of which are very concerned about their rights. To add fuel to the fire, Republican senators offered amendments to the bill to allow a background check but without the registration in at least a couple amendments that I know of… Everything was on the table such as CHL exemption and one amendment witch left the background check voluntary but made it a crime to sell to a prohibited person even if unknowingly. All of this was quickly thrown out and the bill quickly passed the senate vote. This bill promoted by Sen. Prozanski with lies similar to the article I shared in the first post is slated to quickly pass the House and be signed into law, the emergency clause makes the law effective immediately at its signing.



So where does that leave us… fighting tooth and nail. There is still a chance with enough public pressure to our democratic senators the bill could be voted down in the house… and the pressure is on. There is now a movement to recall 2 senators over this bill with a threat of more and technically it hasn’t even been signed yet. Despite the fact that these corrupt politicians dominate our government, I’m still proud to be an Oregonian.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/i...ml#incart_2box


I urge anyone here nationally that is concerned about the spread of registration to your states to flood our democratic senators email with the voice of opposition. Bill status and senators info here: http://gov.oregonlive.com/bill/2015/SB941/ or here: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/201...Overview/SB941



PS: Oregonlive.com our largest news publication is exceedingly anti-gun.

[44 AMP]

Koda, I wish you all the luck in the world. seriously.

I thought the I 594 background check would fail in WA, indeed we had defeated similar measures a couple times before.

This time, they got enough wetbrain true believers (and the unthinking who simply accepted the lies they were told about what the law would do) in the I-5 corridor to give them the numbers to pass it.

Last I heard, besides being challenged in court, even the State Police announced they would not enforce it, because even they cannot make sense of it, and are not being given any direction.

Last gun show I went to, there was a guy by the door who did nothing but run background checks. Charge was $30, half paid by the buyer, half by the seller. No sure who got the money in the end. Every seller voluntarily complied. PITA, for sure, but until its changed, its the law here.

I don't know any of the details of the pending Oregon law, but I would be very much surprised if it was also something not just onerous, but unclear as well.

Are they telling Oregonians that they need this law to keep convicted domestic abusers from buying guns? They told people in WA that, and often.

[Tom Servo]

Last I heard, besides being challenged in court, even the State Police announced they would not enforce it, because even they cannot make sense of it, and are not being given any direction.

We heard that from a bunch of sheriffs in Washington state as well. That right there should have raised enough concerns to stall passage of the law.

[doofus47]

Tom Servo

We heard that from a bunch of sheriffs in Washington state as well. That right there should have raised enough concerns to stall passage of the law.

We heard that from pretty much ALL the sheriff's in Colorado. Apparently, the guys who dig the trenches can't have a meaningful opinion about whether you're giving them a good shovel.

[rickyrick]

Oathkeepers did a gun swap in Olympia in protest

[Koda94]

many of our sheriffs have stated opposition to the bill and one has even claimed he will not enforce it. Almost all of Oregon counties have passed resolutions against enforcing the bill and a small handful of cities/towns have too.

here is an interesting followup to the story. Sen. Betsy Johnson submitted an editorial to the Oregonian (our largest news publication). Whats interesting is Sen. Johnson is Democratic, but happens to be the only democratic against the bill. If my memory serves me right she has mostly supported gun rights.
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/in...incart_opinion



Another quick note about the recalls, one of the targeted senators, Chuck Riley, I read barely won his re-election last year against is Republican counterpart. Rileys campaign was funded by Bloomberg.