PDA

View Full Version : KQED Perspectives Friday Morning


johnny_22
01-21-2011, 5:36 AM
"Counting on Compromise
Paul Wolber believes some simple statistics make the case for a compromise on guns."

http://www.kqed.org/a/perspectives/R201101210735

He uses the argument that 10 is less than 30 and that is enough reason to regulate magazines. Not sure what 3 questions he is talking about before buying a gun.

NightOwl
01-21-2011, 5:44 AM
Handgun Safety test, Federal background check, state background check? Just a guess.

Anyhow, he put out a bunch of words, but didn't really say anything.

woodsman
01-21-2011, 6:29 AM
Another tool.....

Untamed1972
01-21-2011, 7:04 AM
Compromise = Infringement

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" bro!

uyoga
01-21-2011, 7:15 AM
I wonder if, in his statistical model, he incorporated the thousands of citizens who possess and regularly use 30 round magazines (not clips) and have not gone on a shooting rampage or shot anyone?

Wherryj
01-21-2011, 7:50 AM
Another tool.....

Although he's the exception to the rule that one "shouldn't blame the tool".

SgtDinosaur
01-21-2011, 10:04 AM
Give them an inch and they'll take mile. No compromise. That's how we got where we are today.

REH
01-21-2011, 10:20 AM
I have never understood the argument about “clip” magazine size. So it is OK to kill 10 people with a 10 round magazine than 30, with a 30 round mag? With that thinking, the first 10 are just collateral damage to their magazine law.

JDoe
01-21-2011, 11:35 AM
I have never understood the argument about “clip” magazine size. So it is OK to kill 10 people with a 10 round magazine than 30, with a 30 round mag? With that thinking, the first 10 are just collateral damage to their magazine law.

It is the strategy of nibbling away until they get what they want. Historically, we have seen our rights taken away not all at once but by one little bit of kitten saving legislation at a a time. Ten round limit today, five round limit in ten years...

17+1
01-21-2011, 11:49 AM
Sounds like typical KQED liberal-(il)logic to me.

Ford8N
01-21-2011, 5:05 PM
It is the strategy of nibbling away until they get what they want. Historically, we have seen our rights taken away not all at once but by one little bit of kitten saving legislation at a a time. Ten round limit today, five round limit in ten years...

This.

Compromise means gun owners give something up. It has been going only one way since 1934. :mad:

hoffmang
01-21-2011, 5:54 PM
In California we already have the right compromise. It's called WIC 5150 and it works well to separate the insane from their firearms with decent protections for those who get taken in that aren't crazy.

-Gene

N6ATF
01-21-2011, 7:45 PM
The only compromise I will accept is taking the death penalty for these victim-disarming traitors, complicit in countless murders, rapes, maimings, and lesser crimes, off the table... if they repeal every last victim disarmament (gun) law.

DocSkinner
01-21-2011, 7:48 PM
I wonder if, in his statistical model, he incorporated the thousands of citizens who possess and regularly use 30 round magazines (not clips) and have not gone on a shooting rampage or shot anyone?

Guarantee you no -

Selective sampling that give you statistic result you want is the rule for the the anti-2A!

Statistics don't lie - but they, like computers, are a GIGO proposition. So Statistics don't lie, but people doing statistics sure do!

Don29palms
01-21-2011, 7:53 PM
Has anyone else responded to this nutjob's article?

subijitsu
01-21-2011, 8:23 PM
Anybody can make up bs statistics like this guy is spewing. Hell, 72% of people know that. ;)

I will never understand people that demonize an inanimate object because of the actions of an individual. What if the Arizona shooter would have driven a truck into the crowd instead? By the same logic we should restrict vehicles to 2 mph.

RRangel
01-21-2011, 9:01 PM
"Counting on Compromise
Paul Wolber believes some simple statistics make the case for a compromise on guns."

http://www.kqed.org/a/perspectives/R201101210735

He uses the argument that 10 is less than 30 and that is enough reason to regulate magazines. Not sure what 3 questions he is talking about before buying a gun.

Another clever person who believes in fantasyland and who really turns out to be a moron. The number 10 has no magical safety properties. The whole argument behind it is that it's a restriction. The number may as well be pulled out of a hat. Then there's the affirmation that this person has no clue by his misuse of the term "clips."

The perspective of gun prohibitionists that propose and support such things is that any restriction is a good restriction. That they may as well start here. Which brings us full circle to recognizing the anti Second Amendment argument that it is. Talk about "dogma."

pMcW
01-21-2011, 9:13 PM
They've had a couple of these perspectives lately. I was more annoyed and saddened by this one: http://www.kqed.org/a/perspectives/R201101190735

A gun owner who is now ashamed to look at his revolvers.