America's Great Gun Game--a new book on gun control

[ArfinGreebly]

Dr. Fran Fuller

Doctor Fran, glad to have you with us.

Your post actually gives me valuable insight into the method of his madness.

He may not "have the time" to answer our questions.

I am sure, however, that there are those among our membership who will "have the time" to scrutinize the good doctor's "research" results.

It has been clear for over two hundred posts that our Doctor Earl has no interest in discovering truth or in gaining actual understanding. It is also clear that his misuse of rhetorical devices is intentionally provocative.

What will be interesting, from this point forward, is to follow his application of what he gleans here.

In this case, however, when his "work" is released, there will be dozens and dozens of people quite prepared to provide rebuttal.

In public.

Doctor Earl, it would seem, is setting himself up for some public embarrassment.

I do believe I will enjoy that.

 

[bogie]

It's really a question of a utopian society. And a belief system. The guy _believes_ in the possibility of the utopia.

Problem is, he fails to acknowledge that the meat-element (duh... humanity...) will not necessarily conform to the assumptions...

I, on the other end of the spectrum, assume that people are often stupid, greedy, and violent.

Can he cite evidence of the existence of the utopia? Because I can damn sure cite evidence of my scenario.

 

[Soybomb]

There have been 325 comment. I believe I have written 12 to 15. I obviously can not answer your questions. I resent the statement that I have been rude to you. Name-calling is not part of my vocabulary.

I do believe you have been somewhat rude to all the members here. You've made a total of 8 posts here now, including your introductory ones and you've failed to address anyone's criticisms of your work. I certainly believed you were interested in real debate and open to hearing an opposing view point and starting a discussion. All you've done is hawk your book and your position without providing any of the support for them that you've been asked for over hundreds of posts. People here have spent time trying to compose respectful insightful posts because they were led to believe you would stand behind your work.

 

[JKimball]

I have been on THR for less than a month, but I've seen some great threads. I must say I have been blown away by the power, intelligence, logic and civility (not to mention the humor) that has been displayed in this thread. It has really encouraged my hope that the people of America will be able to preserve (and possibly regain) their second amendment rights.

Dr. McDowell,

Welcome! It is always interesting to have somebody with a truly different opinion involved in a thread. I hope your motives truly are sincere, and I'm going to assume that they are because you were legitimately introduced by a THR member who knows you well, and the general tone of your posts seems sincere enough to me.

I can appreciate your desire to bring together these two groups (pro-gun and anti-gun) to come up with a solution to violent gun crime. I don't know if it is worth pointing this out, but whenever these two groups come together, they aren't debating a single topic. While anti-gun groups' main objective (hopefully) is to reduce violent crime, Pro-gun groups' main objective is to preserve their right to keep and bear arms. So in reality a debate on the effect of firearm ownership on violent crime misses the whole point for the pro-gun crowd.

My feeling is that even if you could prove that your claims are true that more guns equals more crime, that still doesn't make it right to take my guns away, or register them so that they could be more easily taken away in the future. So that whole argument is moot when it really comes down to it. Having said that, I strongly agree with the many posts that cast some serious shadows on the anti-gun groups' claims.

Anti-gun groups, on the other hand generally don't own firearms, don't see the need for right of individuals to own arms, and so aren't very interested in the pro-guns groups' claim to constitutional rights to keep and bear arms. They just want to see the violent crime rates come down - or more accurately they want to see the violent gun crime rates come down, and they don't seem to be concerned with the cost that might entail on the civil liberties of law abiding Americans.

So I like your approach of inviting us to suggest some solutions to the problem you are interested in in such a way that it won't exacerbate the problem we are interested in. Lest I be misunderstood, naturally we are interested in violent crime rates and want to bring them down. One of the reasons we feel so strongly about the right and the prudence of bearing arms is precisely because of the disturbing violence we are aware of in the country and in the world for that matter.

I won't go deep into my suggested solutions, because they've already been addressed by others. But here they are again:
Immediate solutions:
1. If somebody uses a firearm to commit a felony, give them life in prison or the death penalty. Even if they don't pull the trigger.
2. Reform the prisons system so that people who are sent to prison actually have a chance to change their ways and come out as a productive member of society.
Longer term solutions:
3. Focus on creating an environment for children and families that will steer them away from crime. There have already been some great suggestions on this.

Accidents should be addressed by changing the image of firearm ownership so that people have more opportunities to learn the importance of safe practices.

I think it is difficult for legislation to have a direct effect on suicide, but anything that can be done to improve the quality of life and well being of families might have an effect there. Lower taxes? Lower health care costs? Maybe review more closely the effects of Psychotropic drugs?

Incidentally, it was well pointed out that if you are truly concerned for the 30,000 that you mentioned that were killed by gunshots, you should equally be concerned about the other thousands that were killed by other methods of violence.

OK, I'm sorry this is going on so long, but I would like to ask you a few questions:

1. Imagine that you actually are our professor. Imagine we are in class and you are up in front of the classroom lecturing us. Furthermore, let's assume we're in a state that allows concealed carry on university campuses. You're probably guessing that most of us are armed. You probably understand that we have all passed background checks and have received all the training and instruction and have passed all the testing required to legally carry concealed. Are you a little bit anxious, or worried about your safety? I'm assuming you would be.

2. Now assume it is the same scenario in your classroom with all the people who have posted on this thread, except now we are in a scenario where the law has required us to register our firearms and get an additional license to own a firearm. You're up front teaching us, you know most of us are probably carrying... Consider that for a moment. Do you feel a little bit anxious or unsafe in our presence? I imagine you would feel the same as you did before.

3. This is the same scenario as before, you are up in front going ahead with your lecture, you may or may not feel unsafe in the presence of 50 to 75 THR members who are most likely armed. Suddenly the door slams open and in walks one of your students brandishing a pistol in each hand. The noise of the door opening immediately grabs your attention and as you look to see what it is you begin to realize what is going on. He points a gun at you and you try to dodge but he shoots and you are hit in the upper chest near your shoulder. You are shocked and fall to the ground. You look up at your attacker and see him pointing in on you to finish you off. You hear the gunshots, but you aren't hit again. You see your attacker fall unconcious to the ground. Now how do you feel about being in a room full of gun-toting law abiding citizens?

 

[bogie]

After a scan, I'd be inclined to say troll...

You know, something tells me that we may be getting a bit of Dr. Lemur here....

Mods - it's boring. Nuke it from orbit.

 

[Tharg]

Hello Mr. McDowell,

I'm lost as to how the registration of guns will "solve" even 5% of your target number. In fact, I find it hard to believe you even bring up famous assasinations as you target audience of the reduction of gun violence. In every one of those cases wasn't "someone" apprehended? I could be wrong - i bring no factual information on those instances. But at least some of those had someone apprehended w/o the help of fancy micro stamping or registration in place.

If in fact the rifle/gun/whatnot that killed MLK was purchased by me but stolen from my place of residence what factual good did the registration do? How many great leaders where slain by poison or some other tool of man? I understand the emotion imperative to reduce gun violence, but I don't understand why the proponents of such measures believe that the "actual" violence would decrease. People of a mind will accomplish their goal or attempt to with whatever means is at hand. For (a harsh) example. They tried to blow up the twin towers... that didn't work so they used planes.... who would have thought (other than Tom Clancy) of that?!?

mind you ... explosives... and planes... are very hard to "take control" of. Explosives because they ARE tightly regulated and planes for obvious reasons, and yet... BOTH were obtained. What credible evidence can you give me that people that mean me harm in my own domicile or auto or where I happen to be at could not obtain a firearm? (or even more important at that time - a knife/bat/whatever is available?) The crime doesn't stop, only its tool of operation.

So my question to you, as you have put it several times now, is how do you stop CRIME by 5% per year... its a MUCH larger number than your 30k firearms number...

I like to think of america as a slowly sinking ship. The crew got tired of pumping out the excess water that has taken hold in the lower parts of the ship and they expect "someone" to pump it out because they don't want to any more. They need someone to blame and its a lot easier to blame than it is to go help pump out the water... we've become a people who want and seek handouts and when that doesn't work, then next step is stealing. Simply because its easier than working at Micky D's for minimum wage and scraping by, which is what many of us do.

You want to reduce CRIME by 5% per year... get people to realize that they have to work for what they want, and quit being the grasshopper in the grasshopper / ant story. People that want things and are willing to work for them do not commit crimes. Gun violence goes down because people who don't need to steal don't need to have a weapon as powerful as anything they are likely to experience... better yet... no reason to use it if they DO have one.

I've owned guns ever since i got out of the Military and i can say one thing for certain...i've never SHOT any one. I've thankfully had the good graces to never need to SHOOT *at* anyone. Lastly, if i DID need to... i am capable and have the resources should i need to. Many MANY gun owners are just like me. Heck, i know a ex-police officer that hasn't had to either. And that WAS his job. I hope to never need to, just like i hope to never need my fire extinguisher or to ever have to employ a lawyer. I can hope a lot of things and try to be prepared for the things i can think of.

I can't help but wonder how people did it in the 50's... or 30's ... or the 1900's... who was there to save them? Accountability for your own actions meant something then, its nearly gone in our time line. I can't but think that our government had something to do with it... that they legislated complacency that someone would protect them from being lazy. The biggest recent example is Hurricane Rita. What was the % of people who needed 1,2,3,4,5 more extensions to "get back on their feet"... did they want back on their feet?

its not "gun" violence... its violence. And the predictor is not the availability of guns... its the availability of people willing to use them. The average person is an idiot, and idiots will do anything. Its in our own best interest to have work for them to do, and wage to be earned and a life to be made. Failing this there is a reason some very funny editorials/late night TV make fun of "stupid criminals"... if you've fallen to stealing for your food/drugs/whatever, then chances are you didn't have a chance to begin with. I'm not writing off the race, just saying that the problem starts w/ people who don't think they have a choice, or that the choice is easier than attaining it through work. So... how do YOU plan to create your 5% difference... since now... its not about guns, its about people. People who may use guns to accomplish their goals.

Its pretty straightforward when you look at it that way. I took a long time to type this and its probably wasted on an already irritated professor. (the internet can be harsh/bloodthirsty/etc) but i guess when it comes down to it i don't understand how anyone can blame the tool for the users (mostly semi) intelligent application. Maybe it comes back down to accountability. - there is none. I don't blame the bat that decked me when the guy was attacking me stole my wallet.... i blame the person. Far to many think that the bat was in possession of the authority of the attack.

oh well i close now. When i try to think like an Anti it just makes me try to think of a utopia where nothing bad happens, and as much as i wish that could be... there is always that element that denies that thinking. So long as there is a "bad" element, there will be violence, and there will be a tool that the violence uses, be it guns, knives, fists, physical strength, laser beams, swords, whatever. and so long as that is the case there will be a reason to defend against said attacks. Preferably with the most potent tool available.

---Jason - [email protected]

 

[igor]

Did anyone notice the notion the "Dr." has that THR were some sort of an "organization"?

Another loose observation: competence in rhetoric is all about form, not about content.

It is gleamingly clear that this person is not engaging in any kind of a "debate" here. He is tossing about condescending and provocating comments and boo-hoo anecdotes, and then again disappearing from the map, without the slightest intention of giving any genuine response to the excellent, well-thought and meticulous argumentation that so many here have provided. Essentially, he is ing us around, wasting our time, oxygen and bandwidth and most probably going to spin the results in his further "work" to make himself look good. This is very bad form, against basic netiquette, rude and most likely evil in its intent.

Boy, has this troll been well fed... :banghead:
... but with such classy fodder!

 

[230RN]

Willbrink said,

It's not a troll. His email to me confirmed he is posting here. If it's a marketing ploy, it's a damn poor one....carry on

Just to clarify, I didn't mean as a marketing ploy to us, but to the community of anti-firearms folks who read this site:

See:

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=297709&page=5

Post # 111

 

[buzz_knox]

Just to clarify, I didn't mean as a marketing ploy to us, but to the community of anti-firearms folks who read this site:

Not just them, but antis or fencesitters wherever the good doctor finds them. Whenever necessary, he'll trot out responses he finds suitable from this site (possibly out of context or creatively edited) to 1) elevate himself and 2) denigrate those who oppose him.

 

[Art Eatman]

Reference Post #337:

"If you don't care about the 30,000 people each year who dies from guns, just say so. My statisitics can not be refuted when using neutral sources."

Is it reasonable to assume that from the standpoint of numbers, the Center for Disease Control is a neutral source?

Per the CDC, of that 30,000, half are suicides. The psychologists claim that if one cannot succeed in suicide by one method, another will be used. It is obvious from the Japanese experience that guns are not all that important insofar as sucicidal methodology.

So, Doc, data from a neutral source can be misused--as you're attempting.

Of the remaining 15,000 homicides via firearm, roughly 20% are from long guns; 80% from handguns. Lawful "righteous" self defense shootings are included in this total.

But to baldly state that none of us care about unlawful homicides--murder, if you will--is insulting and is a personal attack upon the membership.

For perspective, during federal testimony in 1993 concerning the ban on assault weapons it was reported that in NY state, three people were victims of homicide via assault weapons. Some 2,300 were victims of homicide via fists, feet, knives and clubs.

Perhaps there are some who don't care about people who die from those causes. Or car wrecks/drowning/falls/etc./etc.

Those who would insult could at least attempt some modicum of logic in their argument. Please.

Art

 

[Fred Fuller]

Dr. McDowell,

I'd like for you to read the following web sites, put together by individuals and groups who seem to represent those folks you usually refer to as 'victims:'

http://www.blackmanwithagun.com/

http://www.pinkpistols.org/

http://www.womenandguns.com/

http://www.2asisters.org/

http://www.jpfo.org/

There are lots more, as you no doubt know given your extensive research in the field. These are people who have learned that NO ONE cares more about their safety and security than they do themselves (not even you, Dr. McDowell). They have empowered themselves and have seized the responsibility for protecting themselves and their loved ones.

You know what? "The law" as it exists right now in most places allows them to do just that. It isn't illegal to protect yourself, at least in most of the states in the United States.

So tell me- why do you want to make it more difficult for the members of these oft-victimized groups to protect themselves legally?

As our friends the Pink Pistols say- "PICK ON SOMEONE YOUR OWN CALIBER."

lpl/nc (.17 would be about right)

 

[jfh]

this thread is for research, per Fran Fuller...

IMO, We are the willing participants in the game that must be played to get raw data for Professor McDowell's research.

That's it, period. He is not a troll, he may well be a gun-grabber True Believer, and Deus Ex is his graduate assistant (and working on his own research).

I'm not well enough acquainted with advanced studies / doctoral-level classes in rhetoric to know the subject well, but all the evidence found in both the content and the style of the Professor's comments here fit that mold. He has been trying to elicit 'honest' unbiased commentary from the subject posters while limiting the effect of his comment to some variables he has identified.

It'll be interesting to (eventually) read the professor's analysis. Whether or not it has anything to do with the political issues of gun control is coincidental.

We ought to google some more on Rhetoric as an academic profession.

Jim H.

 

[geekWithA.45]

This Thread Is Closed, Pending Review.

This Thread is closed, pending review, until it is clarified as to whether or not Dr. McDowel is using this thread for research purposes on unwitting subjects.

If such is the case, that would be a misrepresentation on Dr. McDowel's part, and facilitating such would be inconsistent with the ethics and goals of this community, which values, among other things, fair dealing and fully informed consent.

Members who may have been contacted via PM or Email are urged to consider this possibility, and copy to moderators any items of concern that may violate forum standards.


And in any event, the thread has pretty much run its course.