1) You seem to either misunderstand or assume my position on the issue of gun control. Whatever the case, you are falsely stating my own personal position. You do this several times:
* let's be honest as to what the ultimate goal. You are arguing for change.
* Obviously, this material agrees with your own personal bias, and so you present it as fact.
* What this position ultimately suggests is that I am a dangerous criminal. That my guns are a present danger to the community. You personally may not share the opinion, but many on your side would demand I relinquish my weapons, or go to prison.
Nowhere in this thread, as far as I'm aware, have I "argued for change". Discussion and fact-finding is NOT arguing for change. Nor have I personally taken the position of the author of the articles referenced.
I suspect that I'm about to argue for change, though not of the kind you quite obviously expect. There is a very good likelihood that I'm going to get involved in arguing and agitating for the passage of a concealed-carry law in the state in which I reside.
If you had read some of my posts in this thread which are not addressed directly to you, perhaps you would have better understood my position.
I was responding to your flame in message number 41, which which you wrote:
...and who shows ANY evidence whatsoever of being an independent thinker rather than just a "YEAH, BABY, ME TOO!" dittohead who just automatically SECONDS every single damn thing that is said in this forum.
That "flame" was not directed to you, but to a moron who had first flamed me by glibly labelling me a troll - apparently without bothering to read any of my numerous previous posts in this forum. I did not flame you in any way, since I was defending myself from attack, and was not even speaking to you. You responded, in effect, by jumping into the conversation and flaming me. Therefore my position that "you started it" stands.
You talking to a Marine Corps veteran. And if you have little experience with firearms, pretty much you are arguing from authority.
As you yourself have noted, hands-on experience with firearms does not
suggest that I am an authoritative expert on weaponry and the law.
You ask:
Are you personally acquainted with the people responsible for these figures? Were you involved in the research? The actual research, not a few hours of library reading.
No, I'm not, which is why I'm reading the research which addresses both sides of an issue and trying to discover the nuances of what is correct and incorrect.
What you call research is just becoming familiar with the reading material.
It would appear that you are not very familiar with methods of research. Reading what has previously been published is known as "secondary research," and it is an integral part of gaining understanding of an issue.
Since others have done research and published the results, reviewing the range of their research and determining what of it is valid is one of the most efficient (and accepted) means of learning something about the subject.
In conclusion, please do not argue from authority. The authority you cite may not be considered credible in all circles.
Again, you mistake my interest in discussion and fact-finding for an "argument against your personal position."
Arguing from authority is making an argument based on the fact that Person A has credibility because he is a such-and-such, and Person A says thus-and-so, therefore thus-and-so must be true. A perfect example is, "I am an ex-Marine. Therefore what I say about firearms policy and adolescent firearms suicide and so on must be true, because I've handled guns, and I've served my country as well."
I in no way disparage or dishonor your service of our country - on the contrary, I respect, admire and appreciate it, and hold you in high esteem as I do any member or former member of our armed forces - but that alone doesn't qualify you to understand the dynamics of societal behavior in the way that civilians (including adolescents) handle firearms.
Not only have I NOT argued in this thread for a specific position, my focus has been exclusively on the facts (and on whether or not such-and-such facts are true) - not the supposed "authorities" behind them. Your assessment, therefore, that I was "arguing from authority" is doubly incorrect.
I hate to leave it at that, because there is so much in your post I agree with. Suffice it to say, if you reread your post and note the substantial amount of stuff I haven't challenged, well, we agree on those things.
Yes, this was an obvious assumption on my part. What else am I suppsed to think?
What qualifies you to make an assessment of this article as being worthwhile? A couple of hours in the library reading, excuse me performing secondary research? Do you have practical experience with handling firearms? I did not cite myself as an authority on weapons or the law, but I think I have as much credibility on general topic of firearms and firearm safety as anyone. I handled firearms as an adolescent. Many of us around here have. Kids and guns is no boogy-man. I could shoot before my tenth birthday. By then I could kill an animal, dress it, cook it, and eat it. Weapons in general and firearms in particular aren't exactly new things. We don't need so-called "experts" to tell us we can't have them.
The reason we are suspicious of articles like this is because they are all begging the question of firearm ownership. Whether you agree with gun control or not, the people from Handgun Control and the Violence Policy Project feel it's their duty to see legal ownership restricted. I don't like them because they purport to be experts on the subject, experts on sociatal behavior, yet don't see to care that I and the rest of society have been ticking along fine with them. People like me tell them "it's not the guns that are the problem, its people" yet they presume to know better.
So, if you want to talk guns, fine. Please make you intentions known. Why bait people into an argument? You deserve any flames you get.
Researchers at familyeducation.com have collected the following statistics on kids and guns:
Who are these researchers? What are their credentials? Who owns the Learning Network, Inc?
From their website:
Learning Network is built on a strong foundation of assets from the international media company, Pearson plc (NYSE:PSO), as well as educational properties from leading educational publishers and technology companies. Learning Network has business offices in San Francisco, New York City, Boston, Chicago, and Paramus, NJ. For more information, call 1-888-816-1999 (8 AM - 5 PM, Pacific Time; 11 AM - 8 PM, Eastern Time), or visit learningnetwork.com on the Internet (America Online Keyword: Learning Network).
Who is Pearson, Inc?
Twenty-nine percent of high-school boys have at least one firearm; most are intended for hunting and sporting purposes. Six percent say they carry a gun outside the home. -- The National Institute of Justice, 1998
Do all these boys live like Pippi Longstocking? Or do they have parents?
From 1980 to 1997, gun killings by young people 18 to 24 increased from about 5,000 to more than 7,500. During the same period, gun killings by people 25 and older fell by almost half, to about 5,000. -- The US Department of Justice
Any explanations for an upsurge in youth violence in the 80s and 90s? Must have been due to the '86 ban right?
There are about 60 million handguns in the United States. About 2 to 3 million new and used handguns are sold each year. -- US Senate Statistics
THERE'S SO MANY GUNS!
Nearly 500 children and teenagers each year are killed in gun-related accidents. About 1,500 commit suicide. Nearly 7,000 violent crimes are committed each year by juveniles using guns they found in their own homes. -- Senator Herb Kohl, sponsor of the safety lock measure.
Accidents involving teens and children. How old is a teen, 19? Also, those violent crimes committed with guns found in homes, are those the fault of the guns? Is this a new phenomenon? Would safety locks be effective? How many people would actually use them, and if made mandatory, how would the law be enforced?
In 1994, every day, 16 children age 19 and under were killed with guns and 64 were wounded in this country. -- National Center for Health and Statistics, 1996
19 is not a child. 19 is an adult.