Gun Rights Study

[thomasygrande]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

^So is the object to see what laws the pro-gun community would accept and the police think would be of benefit?

[nick]

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]

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]

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]

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]

^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]

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]

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.