Does it matter to know that what you are doing is effective?

You said: "I do believe those diagnosed with a propensity to harm themself or others should not have guns. "

But without knowing the law, and without knowing the situation how can you have an opinion on this topic, which was about the law, and about the situation.

Instead your opinion is on something not the situation, not the law, but something else that you decided was relevant without stating what, I guess you thought we would all read your mind and know what it was that you were talking about not knowing the situation and not knowing the law.

Hahahaha, sure sounds like you have no opinion.

Now we see the point of my comment.

There are studies on chainsaws. However they tend to be based on around safe operation.

http://research.archives.gov/description/558500

Again, studies answer specific questions. Despite you trying to be funny, this was a good point. We had questions we wanted answered so we gathered data and were able to reach well founded conclusions.

One of President Obama's advisers was on NPR the other day and was very honest that the "Assault" weapons ban had no measurable difference on the incidence of gun violence, but that we should re-institute it anyways because it will make us feel safer.

Without being psychic we all can only guess, unless you actually explain those kinds of comments.

So after all of that, do you think the law is just? Do you think it is effective?

So you said nothing at all then. Thanks for contributing!

Yes, the law is the law msharmony thanks for noticing!

What made it an attack?

Id call it an observation based off of her nonsense answer.

Do you agree with her that if its a law it must be right? Because she either meant that, or said nothing at all except to state the obvious.

So which is it? Say nothing, or believe that laws are always right?

Proper studies will show you all of the raw data. With that you should be able to show either the bias in data collection, the lack of rigorous methods, or run your own study based off of the same data and see if you come to different conclusions, then go back and find what methods caused the differences and examine why the difference occurred.

Nope, cant get off that easy, good study or bad study you learn something. You either learn that the methods used were bad, and fix them, or learn your answer to your question. Heck often you even learn new questions to ask.

I think if it was on his own recognizance than it doesn't count. I believe if only forced to be admitted.

msharmony of course has nothing to say. Any law is a good law I guess as far as she is concerned.

No one that knows anything claims that studies prove a person right or wrong on some vague set of notions . . . . . They answer specific questions within strict error bars.

Questions like, do gun locks reduce the incidents of negligent discharge by minors?

Questions like, has an increase in gun control laws had any impact on the incidence of overall violence.

If you cannot answer these kinds of questions you cannot know if what you are proposing is going to have any positive impact.

But you know all of this, and are just fighting dirty by ignoring the obvious.

Ohh, now you are going to make a claim that no studies can answer any questions that would inform our decisions.

Silly me.

So after I explain how simplistic solutions to complex problems do nothing to help, you offer this simplistic set of logic to prove what point?

Having fewer incidents does not mean the laws are causally related to the difference.

Good studies will show the confidence of the relationship being examined. Without that all you have is correlation, and we know that does not mean causation.

The UK's violent crime rates have increased despite sticker laws. Facts like these illustrate that simplistic responses such as we see out of politicians are not causally connected to the problems.

The same kind of simplistic response that was put forward in the OP. Look at no facts, care not at all for if these same ideas have had any impact, lets just throw darts at the problem and hope something sticks!

Dumb

I want to see the studies that link gun control laws with a reduction in total violent crime.

So do you think that Adam Lanza would have not been able to steal the key to the trigger lock?

Just wondering what facts compel you to believe this?

He stole the guns, why would a key have been more difficult?

Also you have to realize your asking for the government to harm all of the people who will never commit such an atrocity, but forget to lock up guns not in use. So all of that harm weighed again the HOPE that Adam Lanza would have not had the wherewithal to steal a key . . .

Dumb.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFMUeUErYVg

Real facts.

http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/37694.aspx Sources.

Lets see, how can we say that guns give the capability to kill, but also say that they are useless for defensive purposes . . . hmmmm.

We need some really good rhetoric for this!

Come on people we need more sound bytes that make us look like we know what we are talking about and conceal the contradictions!

Good job willowdraga, or dragoness or whatever you call yourself these days!

If the law does not reduce the incidence of the behavior in question then it is ineffective and should not exist.

All laws cause harm, if the harm caused by the enforcement of the law outweighs the benefit, then it should not exist.

If you cannot show a benefit . . . well then, does not put you in a good place to argue in favor of that law.

You know all this, your just playing your rhetorical sound bytes.

Situations are what they are, situations do not allow things. When a set of circumstances can be managed to reduce the incidence of a given outcome, the responsible parties are the people who have the ability to manage that situation.

The very displacement of blame is the first problem we have here. The people responsible for the safety of the children are to blame IF they had any control over the situation.

No set of laws, guidelines, process, or methods will EVER remove all incidence of disturbed people getting weapons and harming others. We all know that the best methods, laws, and processes will only ever reduce the incidence so much, and most methods, processes or laws\guidelines will effect our freedoms directly.

If a given law, process, or guideline does NOTHING to reduce the incidence, then we should not continue to discuss it.

One of the advisers to the President of the United States said that the Assault Weapons Ban had no measurable effect on the incidence of firearm violence, but then preceded to say we should reinstate the ban anyways because it will make us FEEL safer.

Gun free zones are the same kind of animal, it makes us FEEL safer without engaging in the cause and effect relationships involved in the shootings at all.

Regardless of the strength of my arguments they are true. As soon as you see someone arguing a law, guideline, process, or method and never engage in the actual details of the crime that sparked the discussion of ideas then you know it is about rhetoric, politics, and power, NOT stopping the incident in question.

Gun free zones have removed the capability of the parties who have been given the responsibility of protecting your children when they are at school.

The laws that make us feel safer, have made us less safe. That fact is unimportant to those with agenda's that are more about control, than about facts, and about actually lowering the incidence of this kind of crime.

We all know that the mental health issue is the bigger issue, but as is typical human nature the hard fix is always given the least amount of attention.

Make that two of us!

Scored 147 IQ in the 4th grade, graduated in top 3% and own everything from hunting rifles, shotguns, defensive handguns, to evil black rifles like the ones being demonized.

Honestly, its this kind of rhetoric which shows the true colors of the people who use it.

Your right I am man enough to take a bullet to the face!!!!!!


Bad guys watch out, I am such a MANLY man I am bullet proof!

Don't mess with my family, I am such a manly man, don't need no weapon!