Gun lovers disarm control advocates- Chicago Sun Times
- Thread starter Matt King
- Start date
- Status
skinnyguy
Member
My response;
DonP
Member
Survey flaws
The issue I always have with these surveys is they assume that the respondent is aware of the laws already on the books. In short, what does "stricter" mean unless you don't already know if they are strict?
I asked my two "anti-sisters" one time, what kind of laws would they like to see enacted to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
Both have advanced degrees and are professionals, generally smart, educated women. The first thing they demanded were criminal background checks, mental health screening included, not allowing people with restraining orders against them to buy guns, no more sales of guns that can be converted to machine guns with a cheap kit you can buy at any gun show ... etc.
In short, the majority of what they wanted is already on the books and being enforced. If either of them responded to that survey they would have wanted "stricter" laws, even though they have no idea what's already out there.
The issue I always have with these surveys is they assume that the respondent is aware of the laws already on the books. In short, what does "stricter" mean unless you don't already know if they are strict?
I asked my two "anti-sisters" one time, what kind of laws would they like to see enacted to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
Both have advanced degrees and are professionals, generally smart, educated women. The first thing they demanded were criminal background checks, mental health screening included, not allowing people with restraining orders against them to buy guns, no more sales of guns that can be converted to machine guns with a cheap kit you can buy at any gun show ... etc.
In short, the majority of what they wanted is already on the books and being enforced. If either of them responded to that survey they would have wanted "stricter" laws, even though they have no idea what's already out there.
Mainsail
Member
= "I think you are problem is that you don't know who gun owners are."scurtis_34471 said:
...your problem...
jerkface11
Member
So if Huckabee wins we'll all be issued pearl handled revolvers with tooled leather holsters??? I knew I liked him as governor for a reason!
romma
Member
Let's get organized and screw ourselves out of our God-Given rights!!!
romma
Member
I happens to people every day that are in the store that I shop in or buy gas from...
Actually, I was in this very store last night buying something.
http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=4f768c12-c5ea-49ef-81fa-989ed9afab8c
Montville — Police said a local convenience store was robbed by telephone early Monday morning.
Police said a man called Cumberland Farms at 863 Route 32 in Uncasville and told the clerk there to take money from the cash register along with the store's telephone and place the items in a plastic bag. The caller then told the clerk to put the bag outside the store.
He told the clerk that if his instructions were obeyed, no one would be hurt. The clerk followed the instructions.
An undisclosed amount of money was taken and no one was hurt in the incident, police said.
cnorman18
Member
I have sent the following email to Ms. Washington:
Dear Ms. Washington,
Just a few comments on your diatribe against private gun ownership and your deliberate libel of those who support it.
First: I have no doubt at all that you have intentionally deceived your readers about the nature of pro-gunners' communications to you. I am sure that you did receive some abusive letters--but I am equally sure that a very great many, if not indeed the ovewhelming majority of them, were, like this one, polite, well-reasoned and perfectly rational.
One would not know that from reading your column; on the contrary, one would assume that all who support concealed carry by private citizens are dangerous, ignorant, abusive yahoos. No doubt that is what you believe, in spite of evidence--including your own mail--to the contrary; and by your words, you intend to foster that prejudice and reinforce it among your readers.
Isn't it intellectually dishonest of you to engage in that kind of negative stereotyping? If that kind of prejudicial lying-by-omission were directed at any other group, would you not be outraged?
Further: You were no doubt told, over and over, about the evidence, both statistical and anecdotal, that essentially prove that armed citizens make a community safer and not more dangerous. E.g., that in every jurisdiction in the U.S. where concealed carry has been instituted, the rate of violent crime has dropped sharply; that the number of license holders arrested for gun crimes has been infinitesimal; that only a tiny percentage of licenses have been revoked for misuse; and so on.
You were no doubt also told, in first-person accounts, of numerous instances wherein a crime was PREVENTED by the presence or use of a citizen's weapon--like my own experience: my home was invaded by criminals who fled as soon as they became aware that I possessed a handgun. No shots were fired and no one was harmed, but that was ONLY because I was armed. I have little doubt that you read many such stories, and were referred to many such statistics. But did you so much as acknowledge these arguments in your column, much less address them?
No. Not at all.
Be honest about your correspondence, even if you have to admit to seeing arguments that you find hard to refute. Pretending there aren't such is, as I said, intellectually dishonest. At best. At worst, it is intentionally deceptive, cowardly, and contemptible.
The same might be said for your remarks about citizens "packing heat". You imply that armed citizens are a danger to those around them; but the opposite is demonstrably true, considering the facts presented above--and this:
If you were "standing in line for gas, popcorn or a gallon of milk," and some maniac like the Virginia Tech killer showed up, prepared to murder you and everyone else in the place, I suspect that you might be very glad indeed to be standing next to a trained, responsible and law-abiding armed citizen.
It's no accident that that killer chose a place where no one else was allowed to be armed. We don't see many massacres at police stations, banks, or other places where responsible people are armed, now do we?
To a criminal or maniac, "gun-free zones" are "free-fire zones" where no one can shoot back and they are free to murder innocents at will. It is apparently your goal to transform the entire United States into such a place.
Bottom line: Do you believe in honest, open, factual debate? Or only in avoiding inconvenient facts and smearing your opposition? If your arguments against the private ownership of weapons are so rational and convincing, why must you engage in this kind of stereotyping and deception? Why can you never address the actual arguments of your opponents, instead of merely pretending we are all violent thugs?
I would wager a year's pay that you will not even acknowledge this email, much less answer it. And that will prove my point--even, though you will never admit it, to you.
Have a nice day.
Charles Norman, Dallas
Dear Ms. Washington,
Just a few comments on your diatribe against private gun ownership and your deliberate libel of those who support it.
First: I have no doubt at all that you have intentionally deceived your readers about the nature of pro-gunners' communications to you. I am sure that you did receive some abusive letters--but I am equally sure that a very great many, if not indeed the ovewhelming majority of them, were, like this one, polite, well-reasoned and perfectly rational.
One would not know that from reading your column; on the contrary, one would assume that all who support concealed carry by private citizens are dangerous, ignorant, abusive yahoos. No doubt that is what you believe, in spite of evidence--including your own mail--to the contrary; and by your words, you intend to foster that prejudice and reinforce it among your readers.
Isn't it intellectually dishonest of you to engage in that kind of negative stereotyping? If that kind of prejudicial lying-by-omission were directed at any other group, would you not be outraged?
Further: You were no doubt told, over and over, about the evidence, both statistical and anecdotal, that essentially prove that armed citizens make a community safer and not more dangerous. E.g., that in every jurisdiction in the U.S. where concealed carry has been instituted, the rate of violent crime has dropped sharply; that the number of license holders arrested for gun crimes has been infinitesimal; that only a tiny percentage of licenses have been revoked for misuse; and so on.
You were no doubt also told, in first-person accounts, of numerous instances wherein a crime was PREVENTED by the presence or use of a citizen's weapon--like my own experience: my home was invaded by criminals who fled as soon as they became aware that I possessed a handgun. No shots were fired and no one was harmed, but that was ONLY because I was armed. I have little doubt that you read many such stories, and were referred to many such statistics. But did you so much as acknowledge these arguments in your column, much less address them?
No. Not at all.
Be honest about your correspondence, even if you have to admit to seeing arguments that you find hard to refute. Pretending there aren't such is, as I said, intellectually dishonest. At best. At worst, it is intentionally deceptive, cowardly, and contemptible.
The same might be said for your remarks about citizens "packing heat". You imply that armed citizens are a danger to those around them; but the opposite is demonstrably true, considering the facts presented above--and this:
If you were "standing in line for gas, popcorn or a gallon of milk," and some maniac like the Virginia Tech killer showed up, prepared to murder you and everyone else in the place, I suspect that you might be very glad indeed to be standing next to a trained, responsible and law-abiding armed citizen.
It's no accident that that killer chose a place where no one else was allowed to be armed. We don't see many massacres at police stations, banks, or other places where responsible people are armed, now do we?
To a criminal or maniac, "gun-free zones" are "free-fire zones" where no one can shoot back and they are free to murder innocents at will. It is apparently your goal to transform the entire United States into such a place.
Bottom line: Do you believe in honest, open, factual debate? Or only in avoiding inconvenient facts and smearing your opposition? If your arguments against the private ownership of weapons are so rational and convincing, why must you engage in this kind of stereotyping and deception? Why can you never address the actual arguments of your opponents, instead of merely pretending we are all violent thugs?
I would wager a year's pay that you will not even acknowledge this email, much less answer it. And that will prove my point--even, though you will never admit it, to you.
Have a nice day.
Charles Norman, Dallas
I guess it just depends upon which polls you want to believe.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-21-2007/0004649357&EDATE=
Zogby International / Associated Television News Poll finds 66% of Voters Say 'No' to New Gun Laws
Associated Television News logo. (PRNewsFoto)
LOS ANGELES AND WASHINGTON , CA AND DC USA
LOS ANGELES, Aug. 21 /PRNewswire/ -- A recent Zogby International poll
question conducted for Associated Television News found that 66% of the
American voting public in a recent poll of 1,020 Americans from August
8-11, 2007 (margin of error of +/- 3.1%) found that the American public
rejects the notion that new gun control laws are needed.
(LOGO: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20030425/ATNLOGO)
The poll asked: "Which of the following two statements regarding gun
control comes closer to your own opinion? Statement A: There needs to be
new and tougher gun control legislation to help in the fight against gun
crime. Statement B: There are enough laws on the books. What is needed is
better enforcement of current laws regarding gun control.
Conversely, only 31% of the American public think new and tougher gun
control legislation are needed.
A majority of voters who support enforcement of gun laws already on the
books exists virtually across all demographic groups and in all regions of
the country with the only exception being Asian and liberal voters.
About Zogby International
Zogby International (http://www.zogby.com) has been tracking public
opinion since 1984 in North America, Latin America, the Middle East, Asia,
and Europe and is a leader in the public opinion field and regularly
conducts polling for Reuters and MSNBC.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-21-2007/0004649357&EDATE=
Zogby International / Associated Television News Poll finds 66% of Voters Say 'No' to New Gun Laws
Associated Television News logo. (PRNewsFoto)
LOS ANGELES AND WASHINGTON , CA AND DC USA
LOS ANGELES, Aug. 21 /PRNewswire/ -- A recent Zogby International poll
question conducted for Associated Television News found that 66% of the
American voting public in a recent poll of 1,020 Americans from August
8-11, 2007 (margin of error of +/- 3.1%) found that the American public
rejects the notion that new gun control laws are needed.
(LOGO: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20030425/ATNLOGO)
The poll asked: "Which of the following two statements regarding gun
control comes closer to your own opinion? Statement A: There needs to be
new and tougher gun control legislation to help in the fight against gun
crime. Statement B: There are enough laws on the books. What is needed is
better enforcement of current laws regarding gun control.
Conversely, only 31% of the American public think new and tougher gun
control legislation are needed.
A majority of voters who support enforcement of gun laws already on the
books exists virtually across all demographic groups and in all regions of
the country with the only exception being Asian and liberal voters.
About Zogby International
Zogby International (http://www.zogby.com) has been tracking public
opinion since 1984 in North America, Latin America, the Middle East, Asia,
and Europe and is a leader in the public opinion field and regularly
conducts polling for Reuters and MSNBC.
scout26
Member
I hope she takes me up on the offer.
Scorpiusdeus
member
Yes, and I hope I am as well. We can exchange stories while we wait in line.
G36-UK
Member
Bloody generous of you, Scout. I hope she takes you up on it.
Feral Cowboy
Member
In the General Discussions forum there is an article that says 90 out of a hundred Americans own a gun. The ABC poll says that 61 out of a hundred Americans want tougher gun control laws. ???????? Not a very good correlation.
In 2006, a Rasmussen Poll said that 52% of Americans do NOT believe more gun control is needed. (See Gun Facts).
Somewhere on the net today I read of a poll that said that 61% of Americans do not think more gun laws are needed. I can't find it now. Maybe you can.
She used a bad poll to support bad lies.
In 2006, a Rasmussen Poll said that 52% of Americans do NOT believe more gun control is needed. (See Gun Facts).
Somewhere on the net today I read of a poll that said that 61% of Americans do not think more gun laws are needed. I can't find it now. Maybe you can.
She used a bad poll to support bad lies.
Feral Cowboy
Member
USAFNoDak;
That was the poll I was talking about . Great.
This needs to go to the "lady".
That was the poll I was talking about . Great.
This needs to go to the "lady".
no it says for every 10 americans there are 9 guns. not 90% have guns. example. my home may have an 8 guns to 1 person ratio while my neighbors home may have 0 guns. my guns are then applied to the total number.so an 8 to 1 ration in my house may become a 1 to 1 ration on my street and a 6 to 10 ration for my town
Steve499
Member
Scout! Outstanding! You must keep us posted on any further developments in the (probably unlikely) event there are any further developments.
You sure blew her stereotype gun owner image out of the water!
You sure blew her stereotype gun owner image out of the water!
waterhouse
Member
I hate that it is necessary, but I'm glad that apparently we are willing to pay more to protect our rights than they are to take them away.
Baba Louie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,831
Ms Washington,
Having read your article Gun lovers disarm(ing) control advocates, may I offer the following in the way of educational background (and of course, my opinionated feedback) on the subject.
Since 1987, when Florida passed their "Shall Issue" laws, gun control advocates have cried wolf to the tune of "Blood in the streets", "Gunshine state", "Dodge City shootouts", etc. all of which, obviously, have never happened. An intelligent reporter should ask "Why?" (or why not?). Could the answer be "Responsible self control" on the part of those who seek out the additional training, the FBI background check, being fingerprinted, having their "mugshot" photo's taken and paying the not inconsiderable fees involved? People who, for the most part, are very law abiding citizens and only wish to be able to defend themselves from criminals who would do them harm. People who, will jump through legal hoops that a criminal will not, indeed, can not.
A wise man once wrote that, "An unarmed man can only flee from evil and evil is not defeated by fleeing from it" (Col Jeff Cooper).
I understand that in Chicago Illinois, it is rare if not impossible to obtain a licensed permit to legally carry a concealed weapon due to the politician's desires keeping the populace unarmed. Criminals will still break the law and carry as they are prone to anyway, leaving the unarmed populace at the criminals mercy, or, if they are able, leaving the unarmed to flee.
CCW advocates ask, what is wrong with this picture? Why should I be forced to flee or submit? Gun control advocates ask, "Why are there any guns in our society?" Never once have I heard a gun control advocate ask if a handgun is a useful tool in any way, far more likely for them to say that it was only "made for killing."
Assume for a moment that all guns were eliminated from our society, for arguments sake. Could you defend yourself against a 240 lb aggressive male criminal who is intent on violating you and is armed with a baseball bat, a kitchen knife or a rock? Could your mother or your father? Answer that truthfully, please.
A Russian immigrant to the USA, Oleg Volk, http://www.a-human-right.com/ has done a bit of research on the racism roots of gun control in this country (something I'm sure your Gun Control research has taught you) and penned the line in one of his posters (I'm paraphrasing here) "I carry a gun because Cops are too heavy". I'm sure the unarmed law abiding citizens of Chicago would feel safer with a Chicago Police Officer by their side 24 hours a day because he or she carries a weapon and represents Law and Order. But you should note, that not every American desires to depend on a Police Officer for their immediate safety when facing an armed criminal. You should also note that not every American who legally carries a concealed weapon has any intention to break the law and do you or other innocent law abiding citizens any harm. They simply prefer to depend on themselves for their own self defense against criminals. You should also note from your research that Police Agencies are in no way obligated to defend law abiding citizens. (Warren v. D.C.)
As a Chicago reporter, you should look up Mike Royko's writing on the subject matter. I believe he revised his line of thinking later on in life.
Regarding the polls you cited. Questions asked in those polls might assume that the responders knew just how strict gun control laws were in the US today. Or they might be leading, emotional questions, like your article; as opposed to well thought out, reasoned responses to a serious societal question regarding control of crime vs. giving up some of our liberties for some sense of perceived safety.
Sincerely,
R.E. Ballew
Las Vegas, NV
I can't believe I wrote "Societal"... :banghead:
Having read your article Gun lovers disarm(ing) control advocates, may I offer the following in the way of educational background (and of course, my opinionated feedback) on the subject.
Since 1987, when Florida passed their "Shall Issue" laws, gun control advocates have cried wolf to the tune of "Blood in the streets", "Gunshine state", "Dodge City shootouts", etc. all of which, obviously, have never happened. An intelligent reporter should ask "Why?" (or why not?). Could the answer be "Responsible self control" on the part of those who seek out the additional training, the FBI background check, being fingerprinted, having their "mugshot" photo's taken and paying the not inconsiderable fees involved? People who, for the most part, are very law abiding citizens and only wish to be able to defend themselves from criminals who would do them harm. People who, will jump through legal hoops that a criminal will not, indeed, can not.
A wise man once wrote that, "An unarmed man can only flee from evil and evil is not defeated by fleeing from it" (Col Jeff Cooper).
I understand that in Chicago Illinois, it is rare if not impossible to obtain a licensed permit to legally carry a concealed weapon due to the politician's desires keeping the populace unarmed. Criminals will still break the law and carry as they are prone to anyway, leaving the unarmed populace at the criminals mercy, or, if they are able, leaving the unarmed to flee.
CCW advocates ask, what is wrong with this picture? Why should I be forced to flee or submit? Gun control advocates ask, "Why are there any guns in our society?" Never once have I heard a gun control advocate ask if a handgun is a useful tool in any way, far more likely for them to say that it was only "made for killing."
Assume for a moment that all guns were eliminated from our society, for arguments sake. Could you defend yourself against a 240 lb aggressive male criminal who is intent on violating you and is armed with a baseball bat, a kitchen knife or a rock? Could your mother or your father? Answer that truthfully, please.
A Russian immigrant to the USA, Oleg Volk, http://www.a-human-right.com/ has done a bit of research on the racism roots of gun control in this country (something I'm sure your Gun Control research has taught you) and penned the line in one of his posters (I'm paraphrasing here) "I carry a gun because Cops are too heavy". I'm sure the unarmed law abiding citizens of Chicago would feel safer with a Chicago Police Officer by their side 24 hours a day because he or she carries a weapon and represents Law and Order. But you should note, that not every American desires to depend on a Police Officer for their immediate safety when facing an armed criminal. You should also note that not every American who legally carries a concealed weapon has any intention to break the law and do you or other innocent law abiding citizens any harm. They simply prefer to depend on themselves for their own self defense against criminals. You should also note from your research that Police Agencies are in no way obligated to defend law abiding citizens. (Warren v. D.C.)
As a Chicago reporter, you should look up Mike Royko's writing on the subject matter. I believe he revised his line of thinking later on in life.
Regarding the polls you cited. Questions asked in those polls might assume that the responders knew just how strict gun control laws were in the US today. Or they might be leading, emotional questions, like your article; as opposed to well thought out, reasoned responses to a serious societal question regarding control of crime vs. giving up some of our liberties for some sense of perceived safety.
Sincerely,
R.E. Ballew
Las Vegas, NV
I can't believe I wrote "Societal"... :banghead:
Baba Louie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,831
Matt,
I got her reply (within 10 minutes of me sending it out) thanking me for my thoughtful letter on the gun control column. She apparently, appreciates me taking my time to share my point of view.
Which means she may or may not have read it but has an automatic politician-like canned response or else has nothing to do on a Tuesday evening at DePaul University. I assume that everyone here who wrote her received a similar response.
It's not so much that I'm a gun lover, but rather, that which they represent (guns that is). Power? Noise? Design? Accurate rock throwing devices? History? Responsibility? The variety of them? All of the above? OK, maybe I am a gun lover. Or maybe I'm just an American who only really wanted to be an American Rifleman. To be left alone to make my way in this world. If ever the powers that be ban all firearms, I'll go back to archery. If they ban that, I can always throw sticks and stones, even tho I'm getting older, and while that's still fun (who doesn't like to skip rocks off water or throw a stick for your dog to bring back so you can do it again and again?) I'm sure the day will come when that too will be too much for those-who-must-do-good-to/for-others-even-when-they-don't-want-your-input and aren't hurting or bothering anyone. Controllers.
I'm not a threat unless threatened. That's one of the things Americans are supposed to be, isn't it? I refuse to control others. Unless threatened... maybe.
I got her reply (within 10 minutes of me sending it out) thanking me for my thoughtful letter on the gun control column. She apparently, appreciates me taking my time to share my point of view.
Which means she may or may not have read it but has an automatic politician-like canned response or else has nothing to do on a Tuesday evening at DePaul University. I assume that everyone here who wrote her received a similar response.
It's not so much that I'm a gun lover, but rather, that which they represent (guns that is). Power? Noise? Design? Accurate rock throwing devices? History? Responsibility? The variety of them? All of the above? OK, maybe I am a gun lover. Or maybe I'm just an American who only really wanted to be an American Rifleman. To be left alone to make my way in this world. If ever the powers that be ban all firearms, I'll go back to archery. If they ban that, I can always throw sticks and stones, even tho I'm getting older, and while that's still fun (who doesn't like to skip rocks off water or throw a stick for your dog to bring back so you can do it again and again?) I'm sure the day will come when that too will be too much for those-who-must-do-good-to/for-others-even-when-they-don't-want-your-input and aren't hurting or bothering anyone. Controllers.
I'm not a threat unless threatened. That's one of the things Americans are supposed to be, isn't it? I refuse to control others. Unless threatened... maybe.
ZeSpectre
Member
My own reply. I could have written more but I doubt I could have contained the anger any further.
- Status