Common Sense Gun Laws

[woodchip]

While much has been said about common sense gun laws, leave it to Seattle to show the stupid way of doing things:

The Seattle City Council is expected to cast a final vote Monday on legislation that adds new taxes and regulations on firearms and ammunition sold in the city.

The legislation, which passed unanimously Wednesday by the Education and Governance Committee, would implement a $25 tax on firearms and a 5-cent-per-round tax on ammunition, and would force gun owners to report a lost or stolen firearm within 24 hours.

Supporters believe the tax will deter criminals from buying a gun, and tax revenue would go toward violence prevention.

Yeah another 25.00 is going to deter a criminal from buying a gun whom the seller is also a criminal. Do you think a tax is charged? Don't they already have laws making it a crime to sell to a felon? I see this as nothing more than a blatant attack on honest citizens to make it more expensive to enjoy their hobbies.

[callmeslick]

I'll agree that this is more symbolic than practical.

[Tunnelcat]

We've got counties here that are not going to enforce the new Oregon private gun sales background check laws. Why? No money was allocated to pay for those background checks. The idiots in the legislature figured the counties could just pay for it with money from?????

[callmeslick]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/high-g ... ar-BBlKMmv

It isn't rocket science.

[Sergeant Thorne]

No it certainly isn't... it's dissimulation.

[Spidey]

New study shows more people drown in bathtubs in states that have more bathtubs.

This is one of those studies that when you see it you go “oh my god” but then when you think about it, it’s like DUH!

It also contains some pure propaganda, such as “high rates” instead of higher rates.

[vision]

This is one of those studies that when you see it you go “oh my god” but then when you think about it, it’s like DUH!

It also contains some pure propaganda, such as “high rates” instead of higher rates.

Oh, you read it? Can you post a link to the free copy?

[Spidey]

A link to the actual study…lol.

No, my comments were directed at the editorialized reviews, did I need to make that clear, yea I should have made that clear. Sorry.

Here is something else… From that Website:

“If we’re interested in protecting police officers, we need to look at what’s killing them, and it’s guns. We know that 92% of police officers killed in the line of duty are killed by guns, three-quarters of which are handguns,”

But this site contradicts that…

http://www.odmp.org/search/year/2015

So either one definition of “Line of Duty” is wrong…or one of those sites is full of ★■◆●.

Definition of LINE OF DUTY
: all that is authorized, required, or normally associated with some field of responsibility


I’m going to start calling these things “Studies for the stupid”.

[vision]

No, my comments were directed at the editorialized reviews, did I need to make that clear, yea I should have made that clear. Sorry.

Right. You never said article, you said study. And propaganda? Please. Way to ramp up the rhetoric TB style....

So either one definition of “Line of Duty” is wrong…or one of those sites is full of ★■◆●.

Or, there are two definitions, and the study makes a point to outline what qualifies as "line of duty," which is should if it is a good study, but we don't know how they define it because we can't read it. I don't think it's unreasonable to think the study and the website are using different definitions. In fact, I can almost guarantee it just by looking at the ODMP's website's criteria. Personally I wouldn't describe dying of a heart-attack as being "killed in the line of duty," but that's just me. We also don't know the context of the quote in the article.

I’m going to start calling these things “Studies for the stupid”.

But you haven't read the study, so how do you know it's stupid?

[Spidey]

That’s my point…nobody can actually read the study without major work, so they are left with the editorialized reviews. (which people seem to accept without question...hence...stupid)

And the definition I posted seems to fit with the fallen officers definition…so the one used by the propaganda sites is probably the BS one.

And yes, I do mean propaganda…it’s pretty much textbook.

And yea, job related stress causes the heart attacks…so they qualify. And even if you removed heart attacks and some of the others, you will never get to the 90 something percent quoted.

That’s classic propaganda.

[vision]

And yea, job related stress causes the heart attacks…so they qualify. And even if you removed heart attacks and some of the others, you will never get to the 90 something percent quoted.

Again, the definition is important. If the authors of the study defined "killed in the line of duty" as died from assault with a weapon, then that probably makes more sense, and there is a really good reason to define it like that. Also, I think the word "killed" often times makes people think intent is involved and, or the very least, external forces. Heart attack? You mean killed by years of eating too many donuts? No need to unnecessarily complicate research with subjective variables.

That’s classic propaganda.

So, just dismiss something you haven't read because it was presented in a way you don't want to hear? That would make me more interested in reading it, not less.

[Spidey]

No…I’m dismissing the propaganda in the way it’s being presented, I’d love to read the actual study, and I think I have already made that clear on many occasions.


If the study had defined “killed in the line of duty” as “murdered” then they should say that in the first place…and guns still wouldn’t make up 90 plus percent.

[vision]

If the study had defined “killed in the line of duty” as “murdered” then they should say that in the first place…

We have no idea what the study said so we can't know the meaning of that quote without context. Funny you should say murdered, because here is a neutral source that describes the study exactly like that, saying the police were murdered, which makes me think the authors went through the effort to properly define the terms used in the study.

...and guns still wouldn’t make up 90 plus percent.

I'm still looking for the source because I agree that seems rather high.

[vision]

Follow up: The 92% figure comes from the FBI stats for Law Enforcement Officers Killed & Assaulted (LEOKA) under the table "Officers Feloniously Killed." The data isn't available comprehensively on a single table, you have to go through it by year. When you do, you will see that the number of deaths by firearm are extremely high and cause nearly 100% of this type of police death in some years.

[callmeslick]

thanks for doing the digging, vision......I was just coming back to do so, and you saved me the work.

[Spidey]

Then I can only assume that deliberately running down a police officer is not being counted in those numbers, because in 2014 there were 47 killed by gunfire and 10 killed by Vehicular assault a 5 to 1 ratio…

2013 6 to 1 aprox
2012 5 to 1 aprox
2011 6 to 1 aprox
2010 5 to 1 aprox
2019 5 to 1 aprox
Etc.


If my math is correct the ratio of 9 to 1 is 90 percent. I’m getting an average of 83/85 percent without using any other numbers such as stabbings. (which would make it even lower)

[Ferno]

If the study had defined “killed in the line of duty” as “murdered” then they should say that in the first place…

We have no idea what the study said so we can't know the meaning of that quote without context. Funny you should say murdered, because here is a neutral source that describes the study exactly like that, saying the police were murdered, which makes me think the authors went through the effort to properly define the terms used in the study.

...and guns still wouldn’t make up 90 plus percent.

I'm still looking for the source because I agree that seems rather high.

If the study defined "killed in the line of duty" as murder, it would imply that every one of those deaths were premeditated.

[Spidey]

After looking again I can see the FBI numbers and the officer down numbers don’t agree.

So I can’t argue that point any further.

[woodchip]

And yea, job related stress causes the heart attacks…so they qualify. And even if you removed heart attacks and some of the others, you will never get to the 90 something percent quoted.

Again, the definition is important. If the authors of the study defined "killed in the line of duty" as died from assault with a weapon, then that probably makes more sense, and there is a really good reason to define it like that. Also, I think the word "killed" often times makes people think intent is involved and, or the very least, external forces. Heart attack? You mean killed by years of eating too many donuts? No need to unnecessarily complicate research with subjective variables.

That’s classic propaganda.

So, just dismiss something you haven't read because it was presented in a way you don't want to hear? That would make me more interested in reading it, not less.

I thought you were big on citing and terminology. Why are you making excuses here?

[vision]

After looking again I can see the FBI numbers and the officer down numbers don’t agree.

So I can’t argue that point any further.

Again, we have no idea where exactly the numbers came from and how they are used. However, the title of the paper is "Firearm Prevalence and Homicides of Law Enforcement Officers in the United States" so naturally you are only going to look at data where officers were intentionally murdered. Finding those numbers my require even deeper digging. It's quite possible the researchers went through the actual records and evaluated each incident to make a determination, which is a pretty common practice in research. You don't usually go "oh the FBI says this, so that's good enough" because their criteria may not fit the scope of your project.

Also, the Officer Down numbers come from volunteer contributions and have different evaluation criteria. Why would you expect them to be the same?

I thought you were big on citing and terminology. Why are you making excuses here?

What "excuse" am I making? I'm simply pointing out where people are dismissing a study they never read because "propaganda."

[callmeslick]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-cult ... ar-BBlQh0v

heaven forbid that people can hike and camp with their families without dealing with gunfire. Article contains significant blather, again, about those mysterious 'responsible' gun owners and shooters.

[Tunnelcat]

It's not a gun owner issue or even a 4-wheel drive issue, and I know that dedicated and responsible 4-wheeler clubs absolutely hate people who screw things up in the wilderness for legitimate users. Even drone use is being screwed up because of irresponsible users breaking the law. The problem is that there's that a$$hole contingent of reckless, self-centered and usually drunk or drugged people who are the majority of violators. There are people who just don't give a damn about anyone else or property not their own and since the Federal government's budget has been sliced and diced over the years, it's now a law enforcement shortage issue on federal lands.

[woodchip]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-cult ... ar-BBlQh0v

heaven forbid that people can hike and camp with their families without dealing with gunfire. Article contains significant blather, again, about those mysterious 'responsible' gun owners and shooters.

The real blather is the article talking about a few instances and think it is grounds to ban shooting in parks across the boards. I guess the real target is hunting season and banning all hunting. Gosh, I guess the serenity seekers want the woods to themselves. Unfortunately they don't collectively spend enough money on their sport that hunters do. And while we're at it, the Hikers don't spend anywhere near what hunters and shooters do on conservation.