PDA

View Full Version : Gun Rights Study


thomasygrande
09-11-2010, 10:32 AM
Im a Graduate Student writing a senior dissertation on CA gun control.
Would Any FFL's in So Cal be open to being anonymously interviewed to take part in this University study? The interviews would take place in the future (4-6 weeks). The statistical information will be made available to the public. All interviews are strictly confidential. I'm just checking out the feasibility and likelihood of actually getting interviews.
If you would like to be interviewed please private message me.

Best,
Thomasygrande

AJAX22
09-11-2010, 11:29 AM
It really depends on what info you're looking to glean.... No FFL is going to open his books to you, but they may be willing to answer a few questions.

And because of the potential for such a study to be spun/biased negatively its probably a serious uphill battle for you to get any meaningful data.

A Gun Rights study can incorporate a number of areas, and before participating the FFL's will want to know precisely the questions you're looking to answer, the types of alternate data you are collecting and the sources, and what agencies are funding the study (if applicable).

What are you looking to accomplish, and what do you want to ask?

kemasa
09-11-2010, 12:44 PM
Why not post the questions that you want to ask. You will get some feedback on those. Depending on what you are trying to accomplish, I might be willing to participate, but if it is a waste of time because you have an agenda, then I will not waste my time.

thomasygrande
09-11-2010, 9:15 PM
No opening of books. The questions would be designed to be vague on purpose. The would be concerning State and Federal Regulations vs. the need to protect citizens second amendment rights. The study is not funded by any establishment. I am a graduate student studying Criminology at a local university. The study is a mandatory for me to receive my degree. I dont care what the outcome it.
An example question might be:
How do you feel about the expiration of the Federal Assault weapons ban in regards to second amendment rights and the governments obligation to protect those rights?

kemasa
09-11-2010, 9:46 PM
It is not a matter of protecting the rights, but about not infringing the rights.

Most people have a bias, regardless of what it is.

jtmkinsd
09-12-2010, 9:58 AM
Car Crash Stats: There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes.

In 2004 (the most recent year for which data is available), there were 29,569 gun deaths in the U.S:


16,750 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),
11,624 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths),
649 unintentional shootings, 311 from legal intervention and 235 from undetermined intent (4% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
-Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2007

Do we have a Federal Assault CAR ban?

thomasygrande
09-12-2010, 10:51 AM
I expected that opinions would be strong on this issue. Especially on this . The bias' of people is what this study is aimed at. Most LEOs are pro gun, however, current laws in place aim to restrict who can own firearms, particularly in CA. What this study hopes to accomplish is (1)to find out if current laws are living up to their intention, and, (2) find out what changes would be beneficial from both the gun rights activist's point of view and law enforcement's point of view.
The findings of the study will be made available to all those who participate. I am looking to interview 25 FFL's
Would any of you be interested? The interview would be in person, over the phone or via email.

Ed_in_Sac
09-12-2010, 11:14 AM
^So is the object to see what laws the pro-gun community would accept and the police think would be of benefit?

nick
09-12-2010, 11:22 AM
The problem is that a lot of FFLs don't actually know the gun laws well, and in many ways aren't representative of the gun rights community. That being said, you'll have better luck with many of the FFLs that come to this forum, they're usually much better informed than an average FFL.

Come to think of it, a lot of us are FFLs... 03 FFLs :)

kemasa
09-12-2010, 11:42 AM
Often, the officers on the street are pro-gun, but the Chiefs, who benefit from people not being able to protect themselves and also benefit from a reasonable crime rate, are not. If there was no crime, then their budget would slim. But the fact is that it does not matter that the police think. You could ask them the same question regarding freedom of speech, freedom to assemble and many other things, but does it really matter when it comes to what is right?

CA makes it difficult for a law abiding citizen to purchase a firearm, which is a violation of their rights. Police are exempt from the firearms roster, yet everyone can only buy a firearm (with some exceptions) if it is deemed to be safe. So, perhaps you should ask why the police can have "unsafe" firearms and others can not.

If you look at crime and where gun laws are more reasonable, the crime rate is typically lower. Washington D.C., Chicago and New York City had/have some of the most restrictions, yet some of the highest crime rates. When Florida passed their CCW law, crime when down, even before the law actually could take effect (it seems that the criminals did not want to take a chance of knowing when it actually took effect). Criminals, by definition, do not follow the law, therefore the laws don't really affect them. Criminals can also not legally have firearms, yet they do. Here is a good one for you, Criminals can not be charged with have a firearm without a permit because it would violate their right against self-incrimination, only otherwise law abiding citizens can be charged.

As was stated, this issue really does not apply to FFLs since they are a business and have a different view.

You can PM the questions to me, as I am a FFL, or you can post them here. If I find them acceptable, I will answer them. If it seems to be a waste of time, I will not bother.

New2guns
09-12-2010, 12:13 PM
Car Crash Stats: There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes.

In 2004 (the most recent year for which data is available), there were 29,569 gun deaths in the U.S:


16,750 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),
11,624 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths),
649 unintentional shootings, 311 from legal intervention and 235 from undetermined intent (4% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
-Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2007

Do we have a Federal Assault CAR ban?

Yabut you can't resist tyranny with assualt cars. There is only one real reason to inhibit and infringe rights to own and use firearms from the people. To remove the ability to resist tyranny. Of course it's just my opinion mindya.

New2guns
09-12-2010, 12:30 PM
I expected that opinions would be strong on this issue. Especially on this . The bias' of people is what this study is aimed at. Most LEOs are pro gun, however, current laws in place aim to restrict who can own firearms, particularly in CA. What this study hopes to accomplish is (1)to find out if current laws are living up to their intention, and, (2) find out what changes would be beneficial from both the gun rights activist's point of view and law enforcement's point of view.
The findings of the study will be made available to all those who participate. I am looking to interview 25 FFL's
Would any of you be interested? The interview would be in person, over the phone or via email.

The main reason that I recall used to impose "Assult" rifles ban was that a young man somewhat shy of all his faculties walked into a Stocton California school and began shooting everything in sight (including children) with an AK-47 he bought online for $49.99. A totally legal purchase but he and he alone commited a crime against humanity and society and 35 million (close to a Brazillian but not quite) otherwise innocent California residents including natives paid the price through prohibition. We are still paying. That crime though is just an excuse to impose control. Having control gives you power.

thomasygrande
09-12-2010, 5:33 PM
^So is the object to see what laws the pro-gun community would accept and the police think would be of benefit?

Yes!
I feel like their is a balance, but we need to find it. I think its hard to find a neutral body to analyze the facts and opinions. That is what I'm trying to accomplish

thomasygrande
09-12-2010, 5:41 PM
The problem is that a lot of FFLs don't actually know the gun laws well, and in many ways aren't representative of the gun rights community. That being said, you'll have better luck with many of the FFLs that come to this forum, they're usually much better informed than an average FFL.

Come to think of it, a lot of us are FFLs... 03 FFLs :)

Well my intention behind interviewing FFL's was they would be more well informed and thus offer a better argument. But if what your saying is true, I would be more than happy to get all my interviews off of Cal Guns. (it just means less driving around for me). Also I understand the politics that police cheifs face, fortunalty for this study I dont have access to a police cheif or sheriff. The cops on the street I feel would offer a less bias opinion about crime and guns. Of course its all confidential

Eagle Armory
09-12-2010, 7:07 PM
Yes!
I feel like their is a balance, but we need to find it. I think its hard to find a neutral body to analyze the facts and opinions. That is what I'm trying to accomplish

We have a constitutional right to bear arms period. It further states that it "shall not be infringed", yet we have background checks, purchase limits, age limits, and the list of infringements go on. Name one other right we have with similar infringements. Name one other right that states violate and get away with. Dose NY,CA or DC ban free speech, the right to assemble? Why do so many people tolerate the violation of the second amendment?

Then there are always people that say "well you have to be licensed to drive a car" but they pay no attention to the fact the driving is not a right.

Think of all the infringements, hoops and regulations that are in place with firearms.

Now imagine ALL of those laws, regulations and everything else, but apply them to religion, free speech and any number of the other constitutional rights we have. Imagine if to go to church on Sunday, you had to pass a background check. If you want to carry a Bible with you, you have to take a class and pay for a carry permit. Or they decide one religion is dangerous, so they make it near impossible to practice it, like they have done with class 3 items.

AJAX22
09-12-2010, 7:32 PM
Yes!
I feel like their is a balance, but we need to find it. I think its hard to find a neutral body to analyze the facts and opinions. That is what I'm trying to accomplish

There is no compromising with an absolute wrong.

Anyone analyzing this issue by default has a bias in that they do not accept the status quo as an appropriate response... so you either want more regulation or less regulation or you just don't care...

What we face is a situation of creeping incramentalism, which has already heavily infringed on an inalienable right.

The point we are currently at has come as a result of trying to reach 'reasonable compromises' with unreasonable and intolerant people.

Look, this is a big issue with a long history. Lots of 'lets all be friends, and reach a compromise' people come along with the best of intentions and ultimately sell us down the river. because if you keep meeting people in the middle who ultimately don't want you to have anything, then you loose... you can't give an inch.

If you'd like some background on the compromises that have occurred to date that might be possible.

But from what we've seen here, its clear that you dont have sufficient background on the issue, and are making some heroic assumptions with regard to your overall objectives. and until you have a better grasp of the history of how we wound up where we are, you can't help our cause, and could possibly hurt it even with the best and most noble intentions.

Just my opinion....

TripleT
09-12-2010, 7:45 PM
Im a Graduate Student writing a senior dissertation on CA gun control.

Excuse my skepticism if it is misplaced but does this sentence sound like it is written by a graduate student ?

" Also I understand the politics that police cheifs face, fortunalty for this study I dont have access to a police cheif or sheriff. The cops on the street I feel would offer a less bias opinion about crime and guns."

Aside from the grammatical and spelling errors, I'm not even sure what you're trying to say.

Just asking the question, because we have been set up before. :(

nick
09-12-2010, 8:46 PM
Well my intention behind interviewing FFL's was they would be more well informed and thus offer a better argument. But if what your saying is true, I would be more than happy to get all my interviews off of Cal Guns. (it just means less driving around for me). Also I understand the politics that police cheifs face, fortunalty for this study I dont have access to a police cheif or sheriff. The cops on the street I feel would offer a less bias opinion about crime and guns. Of course its all confidential

You can find plenty of cops in the LEO forum. Of course, they aren't exactly unbiased on the issue, but then, who is.

Calguns has quite a sample of gun owners from all walks of life. Speaking only of the people I personally met here, the political opinions of those members range from flaming liberals to conservatives just barely this side of the Holy Inquisition, and anything in-between (that's where most are, of course). The education levels ranged from some school to Ph.D.s (and anything in-between). The occupations vary as well. We have government (including LEO and military) and private sector employees here in pretty much any occupation you can think of, including the unemployed. Most tend to have at least some college or professional training though, as gun ownership isn't a cheap thing these days.

Finally, we have quite a few gun rights activists here whom you might want to contact, as well. Look up Calguns Foundation, and it's not hard to find the others just by looking at the links here. Let me know if you need help finding/contacting these people.

jtmkinsd
09-12-2010, 10:09 PM
Excuse my skepticism if it is misplaced but does this sentence sound like it is written by a graduate student ?

" Also I understand the politics that police cheifs face, fortunalty for this study I dont have access to a police cheif or sheriff. The cops on the street I feel would offer a less bias opinion about crime and guns."

Aside from the grammatical and spelling errors, I'm not even sure what you're trying to say.

Just asking the question, because we have been set up before. :(

Unfortunately, too many students rely heavily on spell check. It's not uncommon to see such errors when the service isn't available.

kemasa
09-13-2010, 11:08 AM
The bottom line is if you decide that it is best that people are not allowed to have a firearm, but that causes those who are weaker (older people, disabled people, most women w/respect to stronger men, etc) to not be able to protect themselves and in the end causes those people to lose their lives, is that really the right thing to do?

People have a right to protect themselves. While there might be abuses, that does not justify removing the ability for people to protect their lives, as well as their property.

Then explain why police, judges, etc. have more rights when it comes to defending themselves.

Perhaps a better study is to see what the 10 day waiting period is supposed to accomplish, especially if the person already has firearms, explain why there needs to be a certified list, which does not apply to the police, when if a firearms manufacturers would get sued out of existence if they produced an unsafe firearm, explain why you can not add additional firearms during the 10 day waiting period, why each and every handgun costs so much to transfer, why people are limited to one firearm per thirty days and what that is supposed to accomplish, etc. The list goes on.

Ed_in_Sac
09-13-2010, 1:33 PM
Yes!
I feel like their is a balance, but we need to find it. I think its hard to find a neutral body to analyze the facts and opinions. That is what I'm trying to accomplish

As yourself if your motive is to limit access to guns or reduce crime. Limiting access to guns or banning them does not seem to prevent crime, even violent crime with guns. Two of the most violent cities in the US are Chicago and Washington DC where until recently handgun ownership, even in someones home, was illegal. Yet there are many shootings in those cities with handguns, how does that happen??? Of my friends that live in States where concealed carry is a right (known as shall issues States) crime is lower, even gun related crime.

Might I be so bold as to suggest you do a study of England which has outlawed most firearm ownership and many carried knives. If you look closely at how they classify crimes now, you may conclude that violent crime has risen but much of it is not counted in their reported statistics.

So again, ask yourself if you have a foregone conclusion that fewer guns equals less crime?

jdberger
09-13-2010, 2:07 PM
"Compromise" is an interesting term when it comes to Rights.

How much is too much "compromise"?

Perhaps Blacks should "compromise" and understand that some neighborhoods are probably just out of their reach, financially, and self-segregate? Or maybe they could return to just part-time slavery - you know, just during cotton harvesting season?

I'm still waiting to see what the other side is willing to give up?

Is there really still a decent reason to restrict firearms purchases over State lines?
What's the point of the '86 machine gun ban?
Why are sound attenuating devices restricted (and even banned in some States)?
What's the point of the 10 day wait if the purchaser already owns a gun?
What's the point of the age restriction on the purchase of handguns?
Why do certain rifles require a percentage of "American parts"?
What's the point of the minimum length requirements on rifles and shotguns?

Gun laws in the United States (and more importantly, in California) are a Gordian Knot. The Department of Justice can't even speak authoritatively about them. They're a complete disaster.

Why on Earth should gun owners accede to additional restrictions?

As far as Police Chiefs are concerned, I could point you to plenty that would be thrilled to talk to you. Of course, most are the retards who got us into this mess in the first place.

My suggestion - interview the Antis. Post the results. Let us respond and go back to them with our abjections. We'll give you case law. They'll give you emotional appeals. We'll provide facts. They'll give you distortions and "push polls".

Compromise? That's what people do when they're holding a losing hand.

thomasygrande
09-13-2010, 6:31 PM
Excuse my skepticism if it is misplaced but does this sentence sound like it is written by a graduate student ?

" Also I understand the politics that police cheifs face, fortunalty for this study I dont have access to a police cheif or sheriff. The cops on the street I feel would offer a less bias opinion about crime and guns."

Aside from the grammatical and spelling errors, I'm not even sure what you're trying to say.

Just asking the question, because we have been set up before. :(

Hahaha. Yes, I am a graduate student. I am a criminology student. We aren't exactly english majors. I rely on spell check more than most people. I will keep in mind to proof read my posts from now on. But I assure you that I am not trying to set anyone up. I am actually pro gun, however, my opinion will not be taken into account in the study. Just a historical review of the controversial issue, then how I conducted the research, the statistical findings, recommendations for future studies on the topic, a works cited page etc. No opinions but the people being interviewed.

thomasygrande
09-13-2010, 6:51 PM
Many of you are attacking my choice of words when i said "compromise." Saying its what people do who hold a losing hand.
It seems to me that the gun rights community is not exactly winning, especially in CA.
I think I read somewhere that only one percent of CA citizens actively engage in shooting sports. It is hard to get laws that support gun rights passed with only the support of one percent of a population. A big thing I have learned is that in school they teach you how things should be. Once your out in the real world you see how things are. Even though idealistically it may be a constitutional right, thats not how it is, especially in CA.

This will be an unbiased study if i can garner sufficient support
I am not getting paid by anyone for this. However it may look good on my resume someday :D

Ed_in_Sac
09-13-2010, 8:08 PM
Are you by any chance a UC Davis student?

AJAX22
09-13-2010, 8:34 PM
Many of you are attacking my choice of words when i said "compromise." Saying its what people do who hold a losing hand.
It seems to me that the gun rights community is not exactly winning, especially in CA.
I think I read somewhere that only one percent of CA citizens actively engage in shooting sports. It is hard to get laws that support gun rights passed with only the support of one percent of a population. A big thing I have learned is that in school they teach you how things should be. Once your out in the real world you see how things are. Even though idealistically it may be a constitutional right, thats not how it is, especially in CA.

This will be an unbiased study if i can garner sufficient support
I am not getting paid by anyone for this. However it may look good on my resume someday

lol, The gun rights community has had more victories in the last 4 years in CA than in most other places in the country.

We've made HUGE strides in CA, precicely because it IS a constitutional right.

We're activly engaged in free market expansions of our expression of those rights, we are organizing legislation, legal challanges to existing legislation etc.

We don't have to submit to the tyrany of the majority, even in good old CA.

unless you think we could buy these in 2005 in CA...

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u115/Ratduster77/IMG_0112.jpg
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u115/Ratduster77/pix464542593.jpg
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u115/Ratduster77/S5000675.jpg
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u115/Ratduster77/DCP_0395.jpg
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u115/Ratduster77/DCP_0274.jpg
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u115/Ratduster77/DCP_0167.jpg

thomasygrande
09-14-2010, 11:47 AM
Are you by any chance a UC Davis student?

Sorry, not a Davis slug or whatever their mascot is.
If you agree to be interviewed ill let you know what school I'm at.

thomasygrande
09-14-2010, 11:49 AM
AJAX22 your exactly the type of person I would like to interview. Opinionated and fact oriented

thomasygrande
09-14-2010, 11:51 AM
I am getting lots of feedback, but not many people expressing that they would be willing to give an interview. I am starting the Literature review (glorified book report) today. This thing has to be done by January, I am on a time line.

nick
09-16-2010, 9:47 AM
lol, The gun rights community has had more victories in the last 4 years in CA than in most other places in the country.

We've made HUGE strides in CA, precicely because it IS a constitutional right.

We're activly engaged in free market expansions of our expression of those rights, we are organizing legislation, legal challanges to existing legislation etc.

We don't have to submit to the tyrany of the majority, even in good old CA.

unless you think we could buy these in 2005 in CA...

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u115/Ratduster77/IMG_0112.jpg
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u115/Ratduster77/DCP_0167.jpg

I could buy a Ruger PC9 and a Glock 17 in 2005 in CA :p

Ed_in_Sac
09-16-2010, 12:36 PM
I am getting lots of feedback, but not many people expressing that they would be willing to give an interview. I am starting the Literature review (glorified book report) today. This thing has to be done by January, I am on a time line.

It may be that people are just afraid of the "system." There are quite a few cases where a DA has prosecuted a dealer for "having heard something" or for very minor record keeping errors. Sometimes these revelations come from casual conversations to a "third party." Check out "Gun Rights Examiner" you may get a sense for why some are paranoia.

For the record, I am not a dealer or LEO, but am very active in shooting sports. IMO, what needs to be changed are not so much the laws, though some are overly restrictive, but rather the attitude of the media and frankly some academicians. We are tired of honest law abiding gun owners being painted as a "haters" or "kooks." As to openness generating good will for the "sport," I don't think the large scale media outlets are interested in positive gun ownership reporting. For me, the fear is that if there is media coverage of a training class or shooting event it will probably be distorted to serve the outlet's political agenda, just the way it is!

Again, this is all JMO, but I did take the time to give you an honest answer! :-)

thomasygrande
10-03-2010, 7:26 PM
Thanks end n sac.
That is more than most people are giving me

kemasa
10-04-2010, 11:37 AM
Well, I said that you could post or send me the questions, but so far I have not seen anything.