Stream

Join this community to post or comment

Paul Frank

Discussion  - 
3
joshua Deshautelles's profile photoPaul Frank's profile photo
4 comments
 
+joshua Deshautelles  Au contraire, your response  is right on target.  I am just a bit slow on the pickup.
Add a comment...

Paul Frank

Discussion  - 
 
Authors of research on gun safety polled.
Surveys drawing on scores of experts reveal a clear consensus against the gun lobby.
1
Sifu Mode's profile photoPaul Frank's profile photo
11 comments
 
+Sifu Mode Thanks for the reference. I appreciate it.
Add a comment...

Paul Frank

Discussion  - 
 
POLLSTER'S INTEGRITY UNDERMINED!  I WITHDRAW MY SUPPORT FOR THIS ARTICLE.

The poll reported here was performed by Frank Luntz.  Luntz's poll integrity was exposed in this video piece by Penn and Teller:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4  (With thanks to +Pistolero Jesse .)

Polls in academic disciplines are supported by a science that pays great attention to the language used.  Any peer-review process in the profession would quickly pick up any choices of language, question sequencing, and so on that has been identified as favoring a certain outcome.  Not only does Mr. Luntz ignores these poll-taking norms, as it is made clear in the video he actively exploits these tendencies to jury-rig his polls to get a desired outcome.  *This is heresy in science!* 

This leaves the question about the attitudes of NRA members about gun control open.  Ideally a trained expert in polling technology could examine this poll's design and question conforming to academic standards, indifferent to those standards, or systematically designed to get  the desired result.  I would not be hopeful that the information would be made available.  Alternatively, a well-designed poll constructed by a professional with the relevant expertise could be conducted.  For the moment the matter is left unaddressed.

Lastly, I have the relevant training.  I should have known better.  Alas!  Woe is me.

Cheers, Paul

"[S]urprisingly, most NRA members and gun owners support more restrictive measures on gun ownership.

"The poll, which surveyed 945 gun owners, was conducted in May, long before last Friday's horrific movie-theater shooting during a screening of "The Dark Knight Rises" in Aurora, Colorado. Still, some of the findings are pretty surprising:

87 percent of NRA members agree that support for Second Amendment rights goes hand-in-hand with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
74 percent support requiring criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun.
79 percent support requiring gun retailers to perform background checks on all employees.
75 percent believe concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants who have not committed any violent misdemeanors, including assault.
74 percent believe permits should only be granted to applicants who have completed gun safety training.
71 percent believe people on terror watch lists should be prevented from purchasing guns (actually, this is kind of surprising in how low it ranks). 

“Gun owners and NRA members overwhelmingly support common sense steps to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, even as the NRA leadership continues to oppose them,” [Mayor] Bloomberg said in a release announcing the poll results.  “It’s time for those in Washington – and those running for President – to stand with gun owning citizens who are concerned about public safety, rather than influence peddling lobbyists who are obsessed with ideology."

"According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, 40 percent of all guns sales — at gun shows or between private individuals — don't pass background checks. But the NRA has opposed these as an invasion of privacy."
(http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-and-gun-control-poll-gun-owners-colorado-theater-shooting-batman-2012-7#ixzz3jJEpdZPC)
1
Pistolero Jesse's profile photoPaul Frank's profile photo
6 comments
 
+Pistolero Jesse Excellent video Pistolero:  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4

Thanks!

This leads me to dismiss the this poll performed by Luntz.

See new introductory comment for the post above for details. 

Thanks again.  Cheers, Paul
Add a comment...

Michael Brown

Discussion  - 
 
Something that one city is doing to drive business out of his town.  
by Ezra Van Auken Ah – another day, another taxman employed by the state. That's potentially the case in the city of Seattle for firearms owners after the approval by lawmakers. Decisively taking a...
2
2
Dave Derrick's profile photoBigstones Mc Gee's profile photoJack Malchow's profile photoTimothy Crawford's profile photo
3 comments
 
I think the $15/hr min. will drive more businesses out. Never beleive a govt is taxing something "for a greater good" other than itself. 
Add a comment...
 
Been awhile
I spent the weekend of the 8-9th, and part of the 7th, at my Sisters house in Butler County.  I was there for a Pirates baseball game and a concert featuring the band O.A.R.  I had a great time playing with my Nephew, annoyin...
1
Sifu Mode's profile photoMichael Brown's profile photo
4 comments
 
I wish I was surprised that you refuse to answer the question, but just like EVERYONE else, they cant.  

+Sifu Mode The main issue, as we have already discussed previously, is the moral, and mental stability of society as a whole.  Most people do not want to acknowledge that more laws will not resolve this issue, and that lack of personal responsibility is the central issue.  That to resolve this we will need to change our society, rather than just attempt to legislate the issue away.        
Add a comment...
 
 
Give this guy an AR-15 and you'd have at least seven dead people. But his hatchet, pellet gun and pepper spray killed nobody. He became the only casualty when he walked out the back and SWAT took him out. Sorry, but on a day when two previous theater shootings were in court, this proves that a gun does make a difference in the result. Sorry, NRA, but you're just wrong again.
#massshooting #theater #NRA  
Metro police say the 29-year-old man suspected in the attack at an Antioch theater Wednesday had a background of mental health issues.
1
Michael Brown's profile photoSifu Mode's profile photo
6 comments
 
When you try to take one story and make it representative, you need to ensure it really is representative and not just anecdotal. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%9312)
Mass murders with knives
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3171913/Two-Oklahoma-teens-aged-16-18-arrested-FIVE-family-members-dead.html
It's not just in China, either.
Add a comment...
 
THIS is why we need more gun control now!!! Nobody needs to be armed. That is the job of the government. If civilians were fully disarmed, the crime and violence rates will go down, and we will see no more mass shootings.
 
Most of the following will be my paraphrasing based on two videos, called "The REAL Purpose of the 2nd Amendment - The Ultimate Critique of Gun Control" and “The Divine Right of Self Defense - Mike Adams documentary”. Part one will be mostly from "The REAL Purpose of the 2nd Amendment - The Ultimate Critique of Gun Control", while part 2 is more based on “The Divine Right of Self Defense - Mike Adams documentary”. Part three will be of my own creation. Everything is of my opinion. By no means is this article meant to represent the views of any other individual or group. And BEFORE YOU READ, let me just tell you that I do NOT associate myself with the left-right paradigm, and I agree with liberals on some social issues (such as marriage), and I consider myself agnostic. I am NOT anti government, for reasons explained in a video called “So You Want to Topple the U.S. Government?”. Also, please make comments.
Part one: A lot of people agree that we all have divine rights, which are rights which should not be taken away. Just to name a few, many agree that we all should have the right to access clean water, good food, peacefully assemble, speak without fear, practice religion (as long as others are not affected negatively) and even access good healthcare that is, if necessary, free. But there is a right we often forget; the right to defense of self and others. The strange thing about rights, is that, they are actually boundaries. Freedom of speech, for example, can't exist unless boundaries are established to prevent those in power from harming or imprisoning those who speak against them. But who's ultimately responsible for upholding those boundaries? You may believe you have to right the speak. But what happens to those rights when a group of armed men start moving from building to building, home to home injuring, killing and/or kidnapping those who disagree with them. 
This exact scenario unfolded over and over again throughout history.
It keeps repeating not really because history has been forgotten, but rather it hasn't been properly understood. What if the people who are the victims of the exact same scenario had a fighting chance? 
You believe that the government should have the monopoly on force. But in reality, the gang of armed men that I described often IS the government. 
It was the governments of the world which were responsible for the genocides, ethnic cleansings, and mass murder of civilians. It was the governments who exterminated political and religious dissidents. It was the governments which built the concentration camps and secret prisons. It was the governments who committed the worst crimes against humanity. Governments have been shown to be the most corrupt, most ruthless organizations on the planet. Even all of the worst mass shooters combined can not even come close to the scale of damage overpowered governments have caused.

When the people have no means of defense, the government has no real boundaries. We can not simply hope that their minions (often military and law enforcement who obey) to disobey. That only allows the process to start all over again. You may believe that government may be free of corruption, but in reality, positions of power attracts tyrants, bullies and psychopaths like manure attracts flies. It always has, and always will. Government attracts these types of individuals because of power over others. And for the icing on the cake, they get a paycheck! What more can such a person possibly ask for? 

Once the types of individuals described get in, who would you turn to? You can not get safety by giving more of your power and rights away to someone else. The root of the problem is a total monopoly on force. The solution is to give NO MONOPOLIES PERIOD. We as humans simply are not mature enough to deal with that type of temptation. True power balance MUST be maintained. The right to self defense is that counterbalance. It is the boundary which truly makes other rights possible. We are ultimately the ones responsible for protecting ourselves and each other. However, the right to defense is meaningless without the MEANS of defense (such as a heavily armed population). This is why I believe the right to defense of self and others is a core right of animals, including humans no matter their race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender identity, national origin, color and/or other characteristics.

Part two.

People who are rational, sober minded and follow a code of ethics and morals neither seek out nor create violence and de-escalate it at every level. This should be how all people operate, especially those who are armed. Perhaps the best people we can find are those who despise violence, but are willing to unleash it on violent predators if they have no other way to stop the predator(s). The right to the defense of self and others should not be selectively right for some people, such as law enforcement officers and military personnel while selectively wrong for others, such as average people who do not commit violence. Besides, in my view, law enforcement officers and military personnel are just citizens granted permission and extra (but not unlimited) power by we, the average people. Law enforcement should directly protect our communities while the military provides an external defense, only to be deployed directly in communities if absolutely necessary (in situations such as disasters, invasions, major civil unrest or a crisis in that manner).
A lot of people would agree that it is right to cause pain, injury or even death to a violent psychopath who had already killed multiple people and intends on killing more. But a question that confuses some is rather or not it is right to do it to people, rather they be regular people, or a law enforcement officer or military personnel. While this may sound scary and be controversial, yes, it is the right thing to do rather or not someone is wearing a uniform. Law enforcement officers and military personnel are still human beings. They, like pretty much all human beings, are not perfect, and can still go bad, just as any other person can.

To round part two up, and science people may like this part, as explained in “The Divine Right of Self Defense - Mike Adams documentary”, a lot of plants and animals practice their right to self defense. Cacti, for example, have sharp spines which teach animals to stay away. Similarly, porcupines have spines which do the same. A bird that uses a ranged defense mechanism is the Southern Grey Petrel, which had a stomach which produces wax esters and triglycerides, which can be projectile vomited onto predators. Some Tarantulas what’s called “urticating hairs/bristles”, which can be flicked off into the air at a target using their rear legs. These hairs can irritate, and could even be lethal to small animals. Many species of insects have chemical weapons at their disposal. The Bombardier Beetle, for example, uses thermal chemical reactions to launch a boiling, noxious chemical spray in rapid pulses from special glands in their abdomen. Some ants (specifically, Wood ants) can spray acid. Some Geckos can fire a black or pale sticky fluid from glands in their tail for distances up to about a meter with good aim. The Spitting Cobra can spray venom from forward facing holes in their fangs, spitting up to 1.5 meters. The California ground squirrel has been known to fight predators such as snakes by kicking dirt into their eyes. Elephants have been known to throw various objects. 
Some primates, including humans, have been known to throw various objects. And, as a bonus, I’ll mention that Turtles and Tortoises, along with shellfish, have protective shells, which is animal body armor, if you will.
Why is this important? A lot of politicians say that they want the human species to be disarmed. Though not only is this within itself is a violation of a divine right, but also, it is not possible to fully disarm every last human on the planet. To disarm people, the people doing the disarming must be armed, and thus it becomes more like power re-distribution than disarmament.
Part three.

So you think that a democracy (or republic) will always be sterile of corruption? Democracy is as sterile of corruption as religious holy books are of violence. Though this may sound cliched, I have changed this argument around, let's look at Nazi Germany. The Weimar republic was in a bad situation from the end of World War one to the start of Nazi Germany. Then Adolf Hitler came up, promising the people a lot of good stuff would come when he was in power. And guess what? He goose stepped his own people into a history of bloodshed. He disarmed everyone EXCEPT for the so-called "master race", which made it easier to kill Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, political enemies and more. Adolf Hitler came from the right. Josef Stalin came from the left. Yet both were capable of doing the exact same thing.

Some people make the argument that the weapons possessed by civilians is little to no match to those possessed by the government. However, not only do many of the individuals who use this argument have little to no law enforcement or military experience, and often don’t have much knowledge, or at least don’t think deeply think about history. Just ask people from Vietnam, Nicaragua, Iraq, and Afghanistan just to name a few. Guerrilla forces from these nations, along with various criminal and resistance fighter alike (often from third world countries) resisted often better equipped militaries, and succeeded. Sure, in some cases they did get help from external sources (communist bloc governments supplied communist Vietnam during the Vietnam war while the United States government supplied anti communist Afghanistan), but neither the less they won. Besides, anti armor and anti aircraft weapons can be captured from government armories and military units. Things such as aircraft, armored vehicles and artillery are often meant for SUPPORT and will NOT guarantee victory. I will not deny that technology will be a factor, but it definitely is not the only factor. It is not easy for military or law enforcement units to keep fighting when they gain little to no progress for their hard work.

I’ll wrap this up with some quotes. Most from good people, one (Mao Zedong) from one of the most evil. And I know that Malcolm X. WAS racist against whites, though eventually he changed his mind.

"Concerning 'nonviolence' - it is criminal to teach people not to defend themselves, when they are the victims of constant brutal attacks." "I don't even call it violence when it's in self defense; I call it intelligence." "Non Violence is okay as long as it works." "If you have a dog, I must have a dog. If you have a rifle, I must have a rifle. If you have a club, I must have a club. This is equality." - Malcolm X.

“Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” - Martin Luther King.

"Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense." - Ron Paul.

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” - Mao Zedong.

P.S: do you wish to keep your community safe from crime and violence? Then we must address other issues, such as economics, availability of services, substance use and population density just to name a few. There are places with a lot of guns that are not that violence, such as Kennesaw, Georgia (which requires every household to have a firearm) and Svalbard, Norway, which requires everyone to know how to use a rifle against polar bears. Restricting inanimate objects such as weapons (there are plenty of examples of homemade guns and ammunition) is not enough to address the actual disease rather than the symptoms. If I had my way on weapon control, I may improve the background check system (specifically updating information about people), and make it illegal for a violent felon to own weapons or knowingly transfer weapons to violent felons. Though it is already illegal for felons to own weapons, I feel it is slightly overzealous (so people sometimes end up losing their right to keep & bear arms for a "white collar" crime such as, say, a fake insurance card vs a "blue collar" crime such as unjustified homicide).
2
1
SayNoTo Democide's profile photobrian thomas (Big B Speedy)'s profile photo
4 comments
 
+Matt inLancaster Please read.
Add a comment...

Paul Frank

Discussion  - 
 
FTA:  "You've heard the mantra a million times: "The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." The only problem, it turns out, is that being a "good guy" isn't good enough.

"A new study by researchers at Mount St. Mary's University shows that proper training and the ability to know how and when to apply lethal force is essential to not only "stopping a bad guy" but not killing yourself and other innocent bystanders."
Sorry wannabe Jack Bauers, turns out you suck at saving the day.
3
Paul Frank's profile photo
6 comments
 
+joshua Deshautelles Thanks for the link Joshua.  Good video.
Add a comment...

About this community

GUN CONTROL NOW! "A time comes when silence...is betrayal." -MLK Jr.

Jim L.

Discussion  - 
2
Add a comment...

Paul Frank

Discussion  - 
 
"A congressional ban on gun violence research backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) has been extended in the aftermath of the Charleston church shooting that left 9 people dead."
1
Sifu Mode's profile photoPaul Frank's profile photo
8 comments
 
+Sifu Mode If that was the concern, anonymity could be protected.  This -- combined with other actions -- inform of other intent.  I have to think it is politically naive to not see this as a (successful) effort to handcuff the ATF.
Add a comment...

Paul Frank

Discussion  - 
 
FTA:  
"The best way to disarm the NRA rhetorically is to make the Second Amendment issue moot," Molyneux said. "This is not about the government saying you cannot own a handgun. This is about society saying you should not have a gun, especially in a home with children."

"Molyneux said his approach "does not imply giving up on gun control legislation." On the contrary, the best path to better laws is to foster a revolution in popular attitudes. And this approach would finally put the rights of non-gun owners at the center of the discussion.

" "Those of us who want to live, shop, go to school and worship in gun-free spaces also have rights," Molyneux said. "In what way is 'freedom' advanced by telling the owner of a bar or restaurant they cannot ban handguns in their own place of business, as many states now do? Today, it is the NRA that is the enemy of freedom, by seeking to impose its values on everyone else."

"The nation could ring out with the new slogans of liberty: "Not in my house." "Not in our school." "Not in my bar." "Not in our church." We'd be defending one of our most sacred rights: The right not to bear arms."
Advocates of a saner approach to guns need a...
1
Adam Reznik's profile photoPaul Frank's profile photo
12 comments
 
+Adam Reznik Thanks Adam.  I don't share your view of gun ownership as a natural right.  That is the most fundamental thing going on here.

I must say I am confused by this:

"You prefer emotional response to a "scary" inanimate object over analysis using statistics and logic" 

Possibly I have not successfully communicated to you that I am a strong supporter of research-informed public policy.  I am interested in results, what actually happens in practice.

If guns genuinely make us safer I will support them.  If certain policies on guns genuinely make other individuals less safe, I will oppose those policies.  I don't find gun ownership comparable to the ability to freely express yourself, the right to practice the religion of your choice, and so forth.  

If there was some sort of magic phenomena that only enabled guns to be used in self defense, then there would be no problem here.  But that is not the case.  Since significant risk to others' safety is the consequence of different gun policies there is a legitimate public interest in those policies.  I have been unable to make sense of another approach to this matter my self.

Those are my thoughts such as they are.  Be well friend.  Cheers, Paul
Add a comment...

Paul Frank

Discussion  - 
 
I strongly object to the NRA-promoted bill to require state universities to allow concealed firearms on campus.
TALLAHASSEE – Lawmakers are shooting for looser restrictions on firearms – and so far, their bills are finding favor in the capital despite opposition from campus groups.
1
Dj Shepard's profile photo
 
Your objections and those of anyone else have and should not have ever had any bearing on individual's rights
Add a comment...

Carla Npsgirl
owner

Discussion  - 
2
Carla Npsgirl's profile photoMichael Brown's profile photo
5 comments
 
I hate the #blacklivesmatter  thing. All lives matter, and I understand by just saying that statement many will say i'm a racist.  But its true that all lives matter, and I understand that if your black you have roughly 300% increased chance to be shot by police than a white person, but the police need to be put in their place by all shootings.  Not just ones versus certain groups of people determined by skin color, because that in its core is racist, and you cant fight racism with racism, that's counter productive.  Just like resorting to violence to stop violence, interrupting a politician's rally to "help" your candidate, and rioting out of anger to get something you want.  All of those are attracting negative attention to the cause and reducing it to a joke, and an actual cause/force to be considered.

"If guns could be banished from every human being on planet earth"  There is literally ZERO possibility of that happening.  There are 2 things that all governments refuse to give up once it has been obtained.  Power and money, and both of those rely on guns.
Add a comment...
 
 
I will continue to follow this story until the NRA and 2nd Amendment "enthusiasts" admit that hatchets and pellet guns and pepper spray are no match for assault weapons in theater attacks. A wacko in Aurora, Colo., killed 12 people and injured many others with a firearm. This poor schmuck in Antioch failed to seriously injure anybody, and was killed by SWAT as he tried to flee out the back door. Clearly, the answer for him is more guns, just like the NRA says!
#Antioch #theater #attack  
Antioch's Carmike 8 theater remained closed on Friday, two days after a man prompted a police firefight.
1
Sifu Mode's profile photo
 
2nd Amendment "enthusiasts" admit that hatchets and pellet guns and pepper spray are no match for assault weapons in theater attacks

This is exactly why we believe law abiding citizens have the right to defend themselves with guns. They are more effective. Guns do not just disappear because they are banned. 
Add a comment...

Paul Frank

Discussion  - 
 
The very significant challenges of using guns in a crisis situation, even with many hours of training.

Part Two:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLN6_s66wTg 

Thanks to +joshua Deshautelles 
1
Add a comment...
 
Who really benefits from gun control?
4
1
brian thomas (Big B Speedy)'s profile photo
Add a comment...

Michael Brown

Discussion  - 
 
what you guys think about these statistics?
2
Add a comment...

Michael Brown

Discussion  - 
 
I know this isn't the most un-biased site, but what do you think about the event that they are citing?  
Civil society is based on one thing and one thing alone: the rule of law.  We abide each other, our neighbors, and strangers all upon the basis that the law will be enforced to protect us and enable good commerce. … Continue reading →
1
Scott Mc Ginnis's profile photojoshua Deshautelles's profile photo
2 comments
 
Police can't be everywhere, and sometimes they can't even be bothered. 
Add a comment...