"Leon" wrote in message
...



Once the government gets into controlling guns, it is a slippery slope.

And then you are at the mercy of waiting on local law enforcement to
protect you.
================================================== ===============
Who are under no obligation to do so.

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"-MIKE-" wrote:


Unfortunately, there's an element in power in our own (US)
government
who has no qualms expressing their concern to ban guns, entirely.
--------------------------------------------------
That is TOTAL NRA BULL****.

A background check as well as prohibiting convicted felons and the
mentally ill from legitimate firearms possession is NOT banning guns
from the general public.

The NRA is lying thru their teeth to manipulate public opinion.


You do realize that keeping convicted felons and the mentally ill from
owning guns is a law that is already on the books and enforced. don't you?
This new proposal did nothing to enhance that - at all. The NRA is not my
choice of public voices, but they don't lie. They do a very good job of
revealing the truth. Perhaps you could cite their lies - with specifics and
the contracting evidence. Or is this just closed minded rhetoric?

--

-Mike-

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:14:43 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 4/12/2013 4:57 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"A man found in a pool of blood at a home improvement store in West
Covina after he purposefully attempted to cut his arms with handsaws
remained in critical condition Thursday morning, authorities said."


http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Firefighter-Paramedic-West-Covina-Home-Depot-202462491.html




WOW! I guess Steve Gass needs to invent the "Bullet Stop" LOL

To be honest Monsanto and their GMO products scares the hell out of me
more then the guns.

Mike M

Mike M wrote:
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:14:43 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 4/12/2013 4:57 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"A man found in a pool of blood at a home improvement store in West
Covina after he purposefully attempted to cut his arms with
handsaws remained in critical condition Thursday morning,
authorities said."


http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Firefighter-Paramedic-West-Covina-Home-Depot-202462491.html




WOW! I guess Steve Gass needs to invent the "Bullet Stop" LOL

To be honest Monsanto and their GMO products scares the hell out of me
more then the guns.



But - that's because you think... contrary to those who open their heads and
allow others to simply pour KookAid into their brains so they don't have to
bother doing so. There are those here... Lew...

--

-Mike-

"Mike M" wrote:


To be honest Monsanto and their GMO products scares the hell out of
me
more then the guns.

--------------------------------------------------
You want an argument, change the subject.

Still remember the DuPont line, "Better living thru chemistry".

Monsanto is just plain scary.

Lew

On 4/21/13 6:19 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"-MIKE-" wrote:


Unfortunately, there's an element in power in our own (US)
government
who has no qualms expressing their concern to ban guns, entirely.
--------------------------------------------------
That is TOTAL NRA BULL****.


Unfortunate, Lew, there are lots of quotes available on youtube of
people like Nancy Pelosi saying their goal is to get rid of publicly
owned guns.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 22:46:03 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
Make up your mind! "Guns are pretty much a single use item ... for killing" or "I did own and
use ... [guns] for target shooting". Which is it?

"Pretty much" allows for some variable in the statement. So GFY.

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 23:10:15 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Cars have many, many more uses than guns and there's no way in hell
you can compare the two when it comes to general use. So STFU.

Off your meds again, Dave?

Instead of playing your usual bull**** red herring card, try replying
with a logical comparison of the value to society between guns ard
cars.

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 21:01:58 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
choice of public voices, but they don't lie. They do a very good job of
revealing the truth. Perhaps you could cite their lies - with specifics and
the contracting evidence. Or is this just closed minded rhetoric?

A "truth" which is *ENTIRELY* slanted to their own ends. And, a
"truth" that involves coercive manipulation on many, many different
levels.

Are you really going to sit there and say that their actions are not
dedicated solely to their own benefit?

"-MIKE-" wrote in message ...

On 4/21/13 6:19 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"-MIKE-" wrote:


Unfortunately, there's an element in power in our own (US)
government
who has no qualms expressing their concern to ban guns, entirely.
--------------------------------------------------
That is TOTAL NRA BULL****.


Unfortunate, Lew, there are lots of quotes available on youtube of
people like Nancy Pelosi saying their goal is to get rid of publicly
owned guns.
================================================== ===========
Except hers.

On 4/22/13 12:09 AM, CW wrote:


"-MIKE-" wrote in message ...
On 4/21/13 6:19 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"-MIKE-" wrote:


Unfortunately, there's an element in power in our own (US)
government
who has no qualms expressing their concern to ban guns, entirely.
--------------------------------------------------
That is TOTAL NRA BULL****.


Unfortunate, Lew, there are lots of quotes available on youtube of
people like Nancy Pelosi saying their goal is to get rid of publicly
owned guns.
================================================== ===========
Except hers.


I'm not going to do your homework for you.
If you can find it, on youtube, it's quoted in articles on the internet.
Her, Diane Feinstein, Harry Reid, and plenty of state and local
government official all stating if they had their way, there would be no
privately owned gun in the US.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

"Mike Marlow" wrote:

You do realize that keeping convicted felons and the mentally ill
from owning guns is a law that is already on the books and enforced.
don't you? This new proposal did nothing to enhance that - at all.
The NRA is not my choice of public voices, but they don't lie. They
do a very good job of revealing the truth. Perhaps you could cite
their lies - with specifics and the contracting evidence. Or is
this just closed minded rhetoric?
-------------------------------------------------------
Looks like the Dallas DA must have missed it.

Too bad, three people including the DA himself lost their lives do
to his screw up.

As far as the NRA is concerned, they are strictly losers.

I can just see Miss Zeh, my middle aged, 2nd grade teacher packing

her .44 while teaching me to write.


Lew

wrote in :

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 22:46:03 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
Make up your mind! "Guns are pretty much a single use item ... for killing" or "I did own and
use ... [guns] for target shooting". Which is it?

"Pretty much" allows for some variable in the statement. So GFY.

Nice to see you admit that statement wasn't true.

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 11:03:56 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
Nice to see you admit that statement wasn't true.

Go **** Yourself, Asshole.

wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 21:01:58 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
choice of public voices, but they don't lie. They do a very good
job of revealing the truth. Perhaps you could cite their lies -
with specifics and the contracting evidence. Or is this just closed
minded rhetoric?

A "truth" which is *ENTIRELY* slanted to their own ends. And, a
"truth" that involves coercive manipulation on many, many different
levels.

Are you really going to sit there and say that their actions are not
dedicated solely to their own benefit?

Oh - absolutely. They are (among other things) a voice of advocacy for
private gun ownership. One would not expect them to take up any cause that
is contrary to that. Coercive manipulation? As I said before, I'm not a
dyed in the wool NRA supporter, but those two words don't really fit. One
could perhaps, suggest that the fears they express are exagerated, but I'll
challenge you to the same thing I did Lew - cite examples of anything worse
than that. A lot of people blast away at the NRA without even knowing what
they say, or what their arguments are.

--

-Mike-

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:10:31 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
is contrary to that. Coercive manipulation? As I said before, I'm not a
dyed in the wool NRA supporter, but those two words don't really fit.

So you don't believe that the NRA had or has ever had any part or
manipulation of your senate?

challenge you to the same thing I did Lew - cite examples of anything worse
than that. A lot of people blast away at the NRA without even knowing what
they say, or what their arguments are.

When a self concerned body of people have very familar control of one
of your primary bodies of government, I don't need to look for other
examples.

In any event, I'm not American. I didn't grow up with many of the laws
and values that Americans have, so I'll never closely agree with some
of your opinions on things. The right to gun ownership is one of those
things I'll never agree with.

On 4/21/2013 3:51 PM, Leon wrote:

Once the government gets into controlling guns, it is a slippery slope.

"Gun control" isn't about controlling guns, or even controlling
criminals. It's about government control of law-abiding citizens - the
very thing the 2nd Amendment is there to safeguard against. There's
your slippery slope.

On 4/21/2013 5:19 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"-MIKE-" wrote:


Unfortunately, there's an element in power in our own (US)
government
who has no qualms expressing their concern to ban guns, entirely.
--------------------------------------------------
That is TOTAL NRA BULL****.

A background check as well as prohibiting convicted felons and the
mentally ill from legitimate firearms possession is NOT banning guns
from the general public.

How do you get background checks for the mentally ill? First, there
would have to be a medical diagnosis of mental illness. Many mentally
ill people are never diagnosed. Second, there would have to be a
central database of those diagnoses, which is impossible with the
doctor-patient privilege. Third, how do you distinguish people who
while mentally ill represent no danger to themselves or anyone else.
Would you restrict their rights too?

On 4/20/2013 7:20 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:517200cc$0$7155$c3e8da3

I'm not interested in "gun control" other than to get military assault
weapons and large capacity clips off the domestic market.

There are no military assault weapons on the domestic market now. Military weapons are
automatic weapons. The so-called "assault weapons" available on the market are semi-
automatic -- a distinction which is lost on television news broadcasters, and, apparently, on
you also.


Actually, there are military assault weapons on the domestic market, and
it is perfectly legal to own them. You have to pay a $200 federal
licensing fee, and they are REALLY expensive, but if you wanted to own,
say, a military 50 caliber machine gun, or a full auto M16a, you
certainly could, all completely legal. I would ask, since such
automatic weapons are actually legal and available for private
ownership, how often are they used to commit crimes? My guess is just
about never. In other words, despite their legality there is no
evidence to support an argument that banning them would make society safer.

And what's so important about large capacity magazines? If large capacity magazines are
banned, the bad guys will use more small ones. Tell me, Lew, which holds more
ammunition, two 30-round magazines, or six 10-round magazines? Do you have any idea
how little time it takes to eject a spent magazine and insert another? What will banning 30-
round magazines do, except make people feel good because we've "done something"?
Be specific.

Exactly. And if all removable magazines were banned, the bad guys could
carry revolvers and speed loaders. If speed loaders were banned, they
could carry 4 loaded revolvers.

On 4/19/2013 8:14 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote:

They stand firm against the proposals that have been put forward so
far, becuase those proposals were more political rhetoric than they
were a predictor of anything beneficial.
--------------------------------------------------------
Bull****.

The arms and ammunition manufacturers are simply collecting on the
monies spent to buy their politions.
------------------------------------------------------

Yes it did, but in what way does that have any impact? It was a
bill that was crafted by leveraging the emotions of a society, and
not one that was based on a logical approach to a problem. Moreso,
it was a bill that was based on the desires of a special interest
group which by its own admission, had the agenda of eliminating all
private gun ownership in the US. It was a bad law and it should not
have passed.
-----------------------------------------------------------
You're being manipulating the facts.

Nobody wants your damn guns unless they are military assualt weapons
or high capacity clips.

What they do want is a way to keep firearms out of the hands of
convicted
felons or the mentally challenged.

There isn't a law being proposed that would accomplish that.

On 4/22/2013 9:30 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 4/21/2013 3:51 PM, Leon wrote:

Once the government gets into controlling guns, it is a slippery slope.

"Gun control" isn't about controlling guns, or even controlling
criminals. It's about government control of law-abiding citizens - the
very thing the 2nd Amendment is there to safeguard against. There's
your slippery slope.


Glad you understood that.

wrote in :

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 11:03:56 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
Nice to see you admit that statement wasn't true.

Go **** Yourself, Asshole.

Take your meds.

Just Wondering wrote in news:51754b3e$0$11537$862e30e2
@ngroups.net:

How do you get background checks for the mentally ill? First, there
would have to be a medical diagnosis of mental illness. Many mentally
ill people are never diagnosed.

Specifically because they never seek treatment. I had a family member with a serious
mental illness, and a co-worker who appeared to have one -- both of whom were certain
they had no problems at all. Serious mental illness often prevents the individual from
recognizing the extent of his problems.

Even if diagnosed, a mentally ill person may still be capable of purchasing firearms
*legally* unless there has been a finding _by a court_ that the person is mentally ill:

Form 4473 http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/downl...f-f-4473-1.pdf asks "Have you ever been
adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to
manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?"

A person who has been diagnosed with a serious mental illness, and treated as an
outpatient, but has never come in contact with the court system, may truthfully and legally
answer this question "No."

Second, there would have to be a
central database of those diagnoses, which is impossible with the
doctor-patient privilege.

And illegal under [current] U.S. Federal law.

Third, how do you distinguish people who
while mentally ill represent no danger to themselves or anyone else.
Would you restrict their rights too?

How do you determine that someone is *not* a danger? In the case of an overt act or threat,
it's pretty easy to determine that someons *is* a danger to himself or others -- but what if he
never says or does anything? More to the point -- what if he simply hasn't said or done
anything *yet* ?

Just Wondering wrote in
:

On 4/20/2013 7:20 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in
news:517200cc$0$7155$c3e8da3

I'm not interested in "gun control" other than to get military
assault weapons and large capacity clips off the domestic
market.

There are no military assault weapons on the domestic market
now. Military weapons are automatic weapons. The so-called
"assault weapons" available on the market are semi- automatic
-- a distinction which is lost on television news broadcasters,
and, apparently, on you also.


Actually, there are military assault weapons on the domestic
market, and it is perfectly legal to own them.

Point taken. I should have said "There are hardly any ... on the
domestic market now".

You have to pay a $200 federal
licensing fee, and they are REALLY expensive, but if you wanted
to own, say, a military 50 caliber machine gun, or a full auto
M16a, you certainly could, all completely legal. I would ask,
since such automatic weapons are actually legal and available
for private ownership, how often are they used to commit crimes?
My guess is just about never. In other words, despite their
legality there is no evidence to support an argument that
banning them would make society safer.

And what's so important about large capacity magazines? If
large capacity magazines are banned, the bad guys will use more
small ones. Tell me, Lew, which holds more ammunition, two
30-round magazines, or six 10-round magazines? Do you have any
idea how little time it takes to eject a spent magazine and
insert another? What will banning 30- round magazines do,
except make people feel good because we've "done something"?
Be specific.

Exactly. And if all removable magazines were banned, the bad
guys could carry revolvers and speed loaders. If speed loaders
were banned, they could carry 4 loaded revolvers.

Leon wrote:

Once the government gets into controlling guns, it is a slippery
slope.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just Wondering wrote:

"Gun control" isn't about controlling guns, or even controlling
criminals. It's about government control of law-abiding citizens -
the
very thing the 2nd Amendment is there to safeguard against. There's
your slippery slope.
------------------------------------------------------
What I find so absolutely humorous is that the gov't has already taken
away
some of those rights of "law-abiding citizens" with out so much as a
whimper.

It's called the Patriot Act.

All this hoopla about gun owner's rights is coming straight from the
firearms
dealers and manufacturers using the NRA as it's spokesman.

As the old saying goes, "Follow the money".

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:51756b8f$0$46957$c3e8da3
:

Leon wrote:

Once the government gets into controlling guns, it is a slippery
slope.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just Wondering wrote:

"Gun control" isn't about controlling guns, or even controlling
criminals. It's about government control of law-abiding citizens -
the
very thing the 2nd Amendment is there to safeguard against. There's
your slippery slope.
------------------------------------------------------
What I find so absolutely humorous is that the gov't has already taken
away
some of those rights of "law-abiding citizens" with out so much as a
whimper.

It's called the Patriot Act.

What rights of law-abiding citizens has the Patriot Act taken away? Be specific, and cite
sources of fact.

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:04:07 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:

It's called the Patriot Act.

What rights of law-abiding citizens has the Patriot Act taken away? Be
specific, and cite sources of fact.

Doug, without going into a lot of details, just the fact that several
provisions have already been declared unconstitutional should serve as
some measure of proof.

And you might want to read the "controversy" section of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act#Controversy

--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.





--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.

On 4/22/2013 9:14 AM, Leon wrote:
On 4/22/2013 9:30 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 4/21/2013 3:51 PM, Leon wrote:

Once the government gets into controlling guns, it is a slippery slope.

"Gun control" isn't about controlling guns, or even controlling
criminals. It's about government control of law-abiding citizens - the
very thing the 2nd Amendment is there to safeguard against. There's
your slippery slope.


Glad you understood that.

Many gun control advocates do not.

"Doug Miller" wrote:

What rights of law-abiding citizens has the Patriot Act taken away?
Be specific, and cite
sources of fact.
--------------------------------------------------------
You lazy son of a bitch.

Get up off your dead and dying ass and do your own research.

Hint

Might start by reading the Patroit Act itself.

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:5175963f$0$47053$c3e8da3
:


"Doug Miller" wrote:

What rights of law-abiding citizens has the Patriot Act taken away?
Be specific, and cite
sources of fact.
--------------------------------------------------------
You lazy son of a bitch.

Get up off your dead and dying ass and do your own research.

In other words... you don't know of any.

Figures that the only response you could manage was name-calling. Grow up, Lew.

Doug Miller writes:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:5175963f$0$47053$c3e8da3
:


"Doug Miller" wrote:

What rights of law-abiding citizens has the Patriot Act taken away?
Be specific, and cite
sources of fact.
--------------------------------------------------------
You lazy son of a bitch.

Get up off your dead and dying ass and do your own research.

In other words... you don't know of any.

Figures that the only response you could manage was name-calling. Grow up, Lew.


"National Security Letters" plain and simple violation of the 4th amendment.

It's funny how all the 2nd amendment supporters seem to forget about the 1st, 4th and
5th amendments.

scott

(Scott Lurndal) wrote in :

Doug Miller writes:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:5175963f$0$47053$c3e8da3
:


"Doug Miller" wrote:

What rights of law-abiding citizens has the Patriot Act taken away?
Be specific, and cite
sources of fact.
--------------------------------------------------------
You lazy son of a bitch.

Get up off your dead and dying ass and do your own research.

In other words... you don't know of any.

Figures that the only response you could manage was name-calling. Grow up, Lew.


"National Security Letters" plain and simple violation of the 4th amendment.

The 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, not all searches and
seizures -- which leaves it up to a court to determine what's reasonable and what's not.

It's funny how all the 2nd amendment supporters seem to forget about the 1st, 4th and
5th amendments.

It's funny how people pontificate about the Constitution without having actually read it -- or
read things that aren't there.

"Scott Lurndal" wrote:


"National Security Letters" plain and simple violation of the 4th
amendment.

It's funny how all the 2nd amendment supporters seem to forget about
the 1st, 4th and
5th amendments.
-----------------------------------------------
Careful now, don't want to load them down with too much homework.

Lew

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 20:27:42 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
Figures that the only response you could manage was name-calling. Grow up, Lew.
Take your meds.

Is that anything like replyiing with some insult like "Take your
meds"?

You're a hypocritical asshole.

wrote in :

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 20:27:42 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
Figures that the only response you could manage was name-calling. Grow up, Lew.
Take your meds.

Is that anything like replyiing with some insult like "Take your
meds"?

You're a hypocritical asshole.

Pot, kettle, black -- in your world, it's OK for you to insult me, but not for me to insult you in
return?

Grow up, Dave.

wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:10:31 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
is contrary to that. Coercive manipulation? As I said before, I'm
not a dyed in the wool NRA supporter, but those two words don't
really fit.

So you don't believe that the NRA had or has ever had any part or
manipulation of your senate?

They are (in part) a lobbying organization so by definition of course they
influence legislative bodies. What's the issue there? That's how American
politics works. I noted the use of the two words "coercive" and
"manipulation" and suggest that they specifically don't go together well in
the context of this discussion. That statement does not equate to the
conclusion you suggest with your question above.



challenge you to the same thing I did Lew - cite examples of
anything worse than that. A lot of people blast away at the NRA
without even knowing what they say, or what their arguments are.

When a self concerned body of people have very familar control of one
of your primary bodies of government, I don't need to look for other
examples.

Control? I think you are subject to the rhetoric from the anti-gun fanatics
who like to villianize the NRA. A more practical approach would be to
actually look at what they say and do, rather than to blindly
mischaracterize them.


In any event, I'm not American. I didn't grow up with many of the laws
and values that Americans have, so I'll never closely agree with some
of your opinions on things. The right to gun ownership is one of those
things I'll never agree with.

Fair enough - everyone is entitled to their respective opinions.

--

-Mike-

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 07:36:07 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
So you don't believe that the NRA had or has ever had any part or
manipulation of your senate?

They are (in part) a lobbying organization so by definition of course they
influence legislative bodies. What's the issue there? That's how American
politics works. I noted the use of the two words "coercive" and
"manipulation" and suggest that they specifically don't go together well in
the context of this discussion.

Really? Most ALL legislative bodies everywhere work that way, but that
doesn't preclude for one second that money has and frequently is used
to coerce and manipulate people, expecially in your senate.

It has manipulated when supporting those people getting into power and
it has coerced with the threat of removing that support when those
people are in power. 'Coerced manipulation' appears to be a very APT
description.

wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 07:36:07 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
So you don't believe that the NRA had or has ever had any part or
manipulation of your senate?

They are (in part) a lobbying organization so by definition of
course they influence legislative bodies. What's the issue there?
That's how American politics works. I noted the use of the two
words "coercive" and "manipulation" and suggest that they
specifically don't go together well in the context of this
discussion.

Really? Most ALL legislative bodies everywhere work that way, but that
doesn't preclude for one second that money has and frequently is used
to coerce and manipulate people, expecially in your senate.

It has manipulated when supporting those people getting into power and
it has coerced with the threat of removing that support when those
people are in power. 'Coerced manipulation' appears to be a very APT
description.

I guess it's all in one's perspective. All lobbying organizations work that
way, and to single out the
NRA with no specific complaint is kind of pointless. If you're going to use
emotionally charged words, then you should at least be able to substantiate
your position a little better. Vague assertions don't really carry much
weight. Your position on this matter seems to state that you consider them
to be coercive and manipulative simply because they represent ideas you do
not personally hold to. What about those lobbyists that represent ideas you
do subscribe to?

--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message ...

wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:10:31 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
is contrary to that. Coercive manipulation? As I said before, I'm
not a dyed in the wool NRA supporter, but those two words don't
really fit.

So you don't believe that the NRA had or has ever had any part or
manipulation of your senate?

They are (in part) a lobbying organization so by definition of course they
influence legislative bodies. What's the issue there? That's how American
politics works. I noted the use of the two words "coercive" and
"manipulation" and suggest that they specifically don't go together well in
the context of this discussion. That statement does not equate to the
conclusion you suggest with your question above.

I've been sitting on the side here... but there seems to be a theme in the
thread not previously mentioned that may warrant some consideration.

What I've noticed is that the NRA has been the lightening rod in this
situation but it seems that Gun Owners of America and The Second Amendment
Foundation were often mentioned by the proponents of more regulations as
being the villains that led to the defeat of their bills and amendments...
There seems to be a disconnect by omission in the current demonization.

Me personally... my positions are based on the academic research on the gun
issue, rather than lobbyist rhetoric, and it's hard to find anything
approaching sound research to support the political activity following Sandy
Hook. Rather emotion based opportunism has typified the activity. NY's Cuomo
was the only one to really capitalize on it... the rest were slow though CT
and CO did manage to get legislation through.

I've also noticed over the years that over reliance on the medical
literature by the proponents of onerous regulations has done nothing to help
their cause. As an example of how this reliance ill serves them, following
is the text of a recent Letter to the Editor that I wrote. It was published
4/4/13. This varies a little from what was printed as phrases such as "You
have commented" seem out of place here.

***start of letter***

The Freeman has commented on the need for more research into the causes of
gun related violence and also stated that the National Rifle Association
€œsquashed government-funded research into the causes of gun-related violence
(1/6/2013).€�

By the early 1990s the broader academic community took note of the
questionable gun-related studies appearing in the medical literature. As
part of that academic community I critiqued drafts of a March 1994 Journal
of the Medical Association of Georgia article by Dr. Edgar Suter titled
€œGuns in the Medical Literature, A Failure of Peer Review.€� Other criticisms
followed elsewhere and in 1996 the House Appropriations Committee took note
of this situation and removed firearms related research funds from the
Center for Disease Controls budget.

As reported by The Freeman (3/7/2013), a recent Journal of the American
Medical Association (JAMA) article claims that more gun laws mean fewer gun
deaths. However, if you lay the CDCs Access to Trauma Care map over the
JAMA articles firearm mortality map you will see several items of interest.
One is that many of the states with high firearm mortality rates also happen
to be states with relatively poor access to trauma care. Youll also see
that states with more guns laws tend to have better access to trauma
centers. This raises a question not addressed in the JAMA article. That
being, what influence does access to trauma care have on firearm mortality
rates?

A December 8, 2012 Wall Street Journal article reports on the role of trauma
care in gunshot wound survivability. The research behind the article found
that the chances of surviving gunshot wounds have improved greatly in recent
years due to the medical care improvements that came out of our Middle East
and Afghan war experiences. From examining the maps it could thus be fair to
say that access to trauma care services is to blame for the difference in
mortality rates across states and not the volume of gun laws in each state.

What is also troubling about this JAMA article is that it was built around
research conducted by The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the
Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. This suggests this research in not
unbiased... Thus it appears this recent JAMA study shares many of the same
problems as those defunded by the House Appropriations Committee.

There are plenty of good firearms related research articles available that
were generated by scholars whom favor intellectual integrity over politics.
We should expect and demand that the sound research be used by of our
elected officials in setting public policy and that specious studies like
the JAMA study should be ignored.

***end of letter***

A respondent to the letter assumed that access referred to the ability to
pay and insurance. To clarify that here, access refers to the physical
access to trauma care as defined by the CDC, namely within one hour by land
or air transportation. It has nothing to do with ability to pay or
insurance. I asked several associates of mine, including an
MD/epidemiologist, to review my letter before I submitted it. They all
agreed that my assessment was more viable than that put forth in the JAMA
article. It has also been passed around the academic community. At some
point a real study parsing out the access to trauma care vs. the volume of
laws could possibly show up in the academic literature. I could be wrong,
but many informed people don't think so...

John

Related links:
http://www.traumamaps.org/Trauma.aspx
http://www.cdc.gov/traumacare/access_trauma.html
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/arti...icleid=1661390
Suters article http://www.rkba.org/research/suter/med-lit.html

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:31:03 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
to be coercive and manipulative simply because they represent ideas you do
not personally hold to. What about those lobbyists that represent ideas you
do subscribe to?

Ok, I can't argue with that point. Maybe if I had the money or power
and was firmly entrenched in the wants of an organization like your
NRA, it might be different.

However, and it's a BIG HOWEVER, consider the size of the hold your
NRA has on your elected officials versus the really big amount of
people that oppose NRA values. The NRA appears to be holding an awful
lot of control of your governing bodies compared to the amount of
people who don't subscribe to their tenets.

I'd suggest that it's an UNEQUAL division of power. When you get too
many people below, at, or near the poverty line, for *whatever
reason*, it eventually fosters a rebellion, a French revolution if you
will. Call it socialism or whatever, but there will eventually be a
rebellion.

I'd suggest that you're seeing the beginnings of it happening here.
Not a money rebellion, but a gun versus no gun rebellion. Coupled with
those very public shootings that appear to be happening more often,
people are going to rise up and eventually, your NRA may be
overwhelmed ~ a real or behind the scenes civil war of you will.