Comedy at Its Worst

[Remington550-1]

I was surfing around the internet reading articles on court rulings regarding firearms. I found this and present it to y'all so that you may laugh in disbelief, cry out of desperation, or yell and hit your head on something hard.

Warning: do not read if you do not have a sense of morbid humor or have high blood pressure.

http://smartgunlaws.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/RGIA-For-

 

[JTHunter]

Link leads to an "Error 404 - not found".

 

[Remington550-1]

Full URL

http://smartgunlaws.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/RGIA-For-Web.pdf

Sorry, only copied part of the URL.

 

[TennJed]

That a link to a 260 page file that downloads to your computer. I am sure it is filled with absurdities, but if i am going to read a book, i will pick better content

 

[steelerdude99]

http://smartgunlaws.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/RGIA-For-Web.pdf

Sorry, only copied part of the URL.

The paper seems to be a summary of hand picked studies; the author tells readers that we have an "epidemic of gun violence". Lots of footnotes, but it does not talk about all of the studies they ignored that counter their basic premise and show that guns prevent crimes.

Here is a section below from page 4 where they accuse states who don't have enough gun luns as being owned by the gun lobby.

An analysis of the authority of local governments to regulate firearms;

• A section entitled “Dangerous Trends in State Legislation,” which documents alarming new types of laws that states have begun adopting at the behest of the gun lobby; and​

Then there is "Universal Background Checks & the Private Sale Loophole" [ top of page 8 ]. Quoting a study that estimates 40% of guns are sold w/o background checks ignores behavior of criminals. Having a Background Check only affects how the law abiding citizen purchases a firearm. In the case of criminals, the "seller" may be prohibited person who may have stolen the gun and should not have a gun in the first place. How is a "Background Check" going to change this behavior?

All I get from this article is that there are persons who would rather be stabbed, robbed, beaten and/or killed rather than have a means to defend themselves. After all the guns make good honest people commit crimes (sarcasm intended). They feel this way when it comes in their own protection and want to use law to force others to feel likewise (or at least be as defenseless).

chuck

PS: Remember the the flawed logic of anti-gunners: "Criminals have guns. Have a gun? Therefore a criminal."

 

[herrwalther]

That a link to a 260 page file that downloads to your computer. I am sure it is filled with absurdities, but if i am going to read a book, i will pick better content

Worse. 285 pages. Merely looking at the table of contents is laughable.

 

[TRX]

> the gun lobby

translation: "civil rights activists"

RKBA is a fundamental civil right, just like the others enumerated in the Constitution.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

In Australia, the Victoria Police sent a report to the government that the answer to gun crime is not more gun laws: they warned that criminals already get their guns black market in Australia, and new restrictions on legal sales would only stimulate more black market traffic.

I presume this book "Regulating Guns in America" produced by LAW CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE. The groups history is tracked here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Center_to_Prevent_Gun_Violence

The opening post heading has it right: "Comedy at Its Worst".

That reminds me: did the volunteer hospital X-ray teams ever find a single Halloween apple with a razor blade inside?

Evidence suggests that permissive concealed gun carrying generally will increase crime. See, e.g., Ian Ayres & John J. Donohue III, Shooting Down the “More Guns, Less Crime” Hypothesis, 55 Stan. L. Rev. 1193, 1285, 1296 (Apr. 2003); and Ian Ayres & John J. Donohue III, The Latest Misfires in Support of the “More Guns, Less Crime” Hypothesis, 55 Stan. L. Rev. 1371, 1397 (Apr. 2003).

Two thirds of the empirical studies on impact of shall-issue right-to-carry find decreases in crime after shall-issue laws are passed; about a third claim the change is not statistically significant. The studies by Ayres and Donohue, using a hydrid model that nests level and trend equations, finds an increase. The National Research Council tested their hybrid model with a hypothetical county data set constructed to show a steadily declining crime rate: the Ayres and Donohue hybrid model gave a spiked increase in crime for the first year a shall-issue law was applied followed by an accelerated downward trend that cancelled out after five years. Other researchers simply do not get that spike, which sounds like a mathematical artifact arising from nesting level and trend models to create the hybrid model. Flawed evidence suggests that permissive concealed gun carrying will increase crime. The majority of evidence does not. See Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, "The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws," (Econ Journal Watch, Vol 5, No 3, Sep 2008, pp 269-293). Or look at the fact that no state has decided to repeal its shall-issue law. Or look at the phenomenon of former critics, prosecutors and police, admitting publicly that their fears of the consequences of R-T-C were unfounded.

 

[Remington550-1]

The scariest part about this article is that, while I found it to be funny in a very dark way, the person (or persons) that wrote it were being serious. Gun control proponents continually say that the do not to take away our guns; they just want to regulate them. However in here we see that regulation is in part confiscation/destruction (pg. 145). This doublespeak is worse than circular. It is not even deceptive; it is insane.

 

[zorro45]

This is the antis' playbook. We should study it well. You can be sure they are studying our websites and publications.

 

[stonecutter2]

Illinois is mentioned a lot as though it features model laws to prevent firearm violence.

Chicago is a nightmare.

More laws don't solve the violence.

 

[texasred777]

I had read too much nonsense by the time I got to the 'Table of Contents'. What garbage! I refuse to read any further. lol