Firearms Refresher course

[lazs2]

dune... that is extremely well put... both factions are afraid to bring it to the supreme court for the reasons you stated.   The left is going for a war of incrementalism... eroding of rights while the right is going for a defense strategy...

I believe the gun rights advocates need to ratchet things up..  defending criminals is a loser.

My way would be to have as many law abiding citizens as possible apply for concealed carry permits in non right to carry states or cities with gun bans and be, of course, turned down.

The law of averages will catch up and one of these rejected citizens will be violently killed or crippled by an assailant and it will be clear to all that if the victim had been armed he would have been able to protect/defend himself...  the stats are out there on the effectivness of defense with a firearm and the effectiveness of concealed carry in other states/cities... FBI studies etc.  (antigunners have no ammunition... excuse the pun)

At this point... NRA sponsored lawyers sue the city or state that turned down the victims request.

lazs

[midnight Target]

Very well put Dune. Actually you stated in much clearer terms what I have been trying to say in my own muddled fashion. It (the individual right to bear arms) isn't as cut and dried as the NRA or many posters on this BBS would think.

And.... Citing the 9th and the 5th Circuit's decisions as the only 2 recent ones is a little disingenuous.

Love v. Pepersack (4th Cir. 1995) - Collective

United States v. Warin, (6th Cir. 1976) - Collective

Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, (7th Cir. 1999) - Collective

United States v. Rybar, (3d Cir. 1996) - Collective

[Dune]

I believe I said the two most recent.  Especially since the 5th's decision that it was an individual right.

But thanks for the complement  

[lazs2]

I would also say that of all the courts ever.... the 9th is the best example of liberalism and nanny state gone crazy...

lazs

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
beetle said... "And Lazs, more than 40 people responded to that thread. None of the others had difficulty understanding the question (note the singular). None of the others felt the need to enter into a debate about semantics"

no... but you haven't really asked people what they thought of your conclussion.   That was not up for debate.   You took what you wanted from your 4 part poll question and used that to prove a preconcieved question.

My poll cancels out your poll as I got the oppossite results.  That would make it seem that one of the polls was flawed.

my question was simply "do you think the firearms laws in your country are to strict or not strict enough."   basicly, a two part question with 2 possible answers.   too strict or not strict enough.

sooooo.... I got my results honestly.   you did not.   I also know that you will bring out your flawed poll from time to time in the future to prove some point or another... That is fine but you won't be being honest... I simply wanted to have an honest poll to refer to so I made mine.

lazs

You got different results because you asked an entirely different question, not because you asked the same question in a different way. But that's what you're now pretending to have done. If someone says the firearms laws in his country are too strict, that could mean that the guy feels that having to keep his shotgun locked in a safe is an unnecessary hassle. But that SAME guy probably DOES NOT want to see handguns made freely available at retail outlets where he lives, which is what I was asking in MY question.

Here's a parallel scenario: Imagine I had asked "Would you like to live in arid conditions where the daytime temperature regularly exceeds 45° Celsius?" (that's one question not two, by the way). And along comes Lazs and says "hey, that was an unfair question. A fairer question would be "would you like the weather to be a little warmer where you live?". And when, inevitably, the answers to your question and my question do not match, Lazs says "oooh look, my question was much fairer and got more honest results, and therefore cancels out beet1e's question".

[NUKE]

Beetle your poll question was colored by remarks and missleading information that I feel voided any fairness in the question you meant to ask.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by NUKE
Beetle your poll question was colored by remarks and missleading information that I feel voided any fairness in the question you meant to ask.

Well of course you would think that, as might the majority of gun toting Americans...

...which is why I invited only non-Americans to respond. It wasn't really a poll as such. It was just a question to which I sought answers.

[NUKE]

Would you like to see guns and gun ownership introduced to your country, guns to be made freely available at retail outlets, and for gun ownership by private citizens to be all but unrestricted, and guaranteed by contitutional right?

Hear's how I would pose the question: ( if you meant to use the USA as an example)

"Would you like to see gun ownership introduced to your country and available at retail outlets, and gun ownership to be legally  available only to law obiding citizens whom are gauranteed that right by constitution?"


Also, you didn't mention the US or it's law in the question, so it did not imply or specify any gun laws or restrictions, which of course the US has plenty of. Your question is a fair question, but to use the results to say that it relates to how people feel about US gun laws is not accurate or fair.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by NUKE
Hear's how I would pose the question: ( if you meant to use the USA as an example)

No, I did not use the US as an example. My question had nothing to do with the US.

Originally posted by NUKE
Your question is a fair question, but to use the results to say that it relates to how people feel about US gun laws is not accurate or fair.

My question had nothing to do with the US or its gun laws.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by beet1e
No, I did not use the US as an example. My question had nothing to do with the US.  My question had nothing to do with the US or its gun laws.

then why use the polls result to conclude this?

Looks like the vote against unrestricted availability of guns goes 15-2, those votes coming from about 8 different countries.

Say what you like about relative crime rates, and of guns "reducing crime". The fact is that of those sampled in countries outside the US, the vast majority do not want to see a US-style firearms proliferation in the country where they live.

[Leslie]

What poll Nuke?  All those results yielded what what a few responders on this board said.  Hardly a random sampling of countries outside the USA.  It was a vote, not a poll, and the results are worthless far as reaching any conclusion about what people in other countries think about gun laws.  All we know is what the few responders thought at the time the question was asked.




Les

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Leslie
What poll Nuke?  All those results yielded what what a few responders on this board said.  Hardly a random sampling of countries outside the USA.  It was a vote, not a poll, and the results are worthless far as reaching any conclusion about what people in other countries think about gun laws.  All we know is what the few responders thought at the time the question was asked.




Les

Poll, vote, question....whatever.....it was used as a poll and the whole thing was slanted. Beet1e says the question had nothing to do with the US and our gun laws, but then he used the results  to conclude that  people didn't want US style gun laws.

[Leslie]

Yes, I got that impression too.  That's why I'm saying any such conclusion is without merit, done in the fashion it was.  Not to say the idea is a bad one, but a real poll would be expensive and involve much research.  A random sampling of a cross section of all socio-economic levels in each country would need to be made (minimum of 30 people in each grouping.)  This could be done by mail if you had the addresses.  Or go knocking on doors, which would be risky and possibly illegal in some countries.  May be hard to get permits to do that as well, especially considering the nature of the poll.

If it took too long, the poll would time itself out and the results would be full of errors.  The questions asked on the poll should be checked ahead of time by a qualified linguist or two, to make certain they are not skewed.  Even the order in which questions are presented could skew the results.  

There would probably be a large margin of error due to mistrust on behalf of people simply not answering the poll.

In my opinion, conducting such a survey would be a Herculean effort if not impossible.  However, results from such would be scientific and accurate, for whoever had the fortitude to do it.





Les

[beet1e]

Originally posted by NUKE
Poll, vote, question....whatever.....it was used as a poll and the whole thing was slanted. Beet1e says the question had nothing to do with the US and our gun laws, but then he used the results  to conclude that  people didn't want US style gun laws.

That remark was merely an observation made some time after the original question was put. I could have put it another way, and you're just clutching at straws to have seized on that particular remark. It was not a conclusion; the results were still coming in. I don't care what you or Leslie or Lazs think about the way I asked the question. To do a poll in the fashion Leslie is suggesting would involve visiting every country in the world - LOL!

I don't know why you guys are getting so bent out of shape over this. It wasn't any sort of official poll. It was just me asking a harmless question on the BBS. What's the big freaking deal about that? And why are we discussing this here instead of in the thread concerned?

[NUKE]

Originally posted by beet1e
And why are we discussing this here instead of in the thread concerned?

because you brought it up?