Gun Rights Study

[AJAX22]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

Ouch

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]

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

[Ed_in_Sac]

Are you by any chance a UC Davis student?

[AJAX22]

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...

[thomasygrande]

:/

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]

AJAX22 your exactly the type of person I would like to interview. Opinionated and fact oriented

[thomasygrande]

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]

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...

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