Skip to main content

View Diary: Abbreviated Pundit Round-up (207 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Rachel shows a bit of bias (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Patrick Costighan, ban nock, andalusi

    I love Rachel on most topics, but when it comes to guns, and particularly high-capacity magazines, she comes across as "push this talking point at all costs".

    On Newtown, long, repetitious discussions about how if Lanza had needed to reload more times, that the death toll would not have been as high. Ergo, a reason to ban high-capacity magazines.

    Then, when it turns out Lanza did "tactical reloads", removing non-empty clips and replacing them with full clips (meaning that he was not using the full capacity of his magazines). So, it turns out he was reloading more? Another long, repetitious discussion about how this is a reason to ban high-capacity magazines.

    Similarly, it's "universal background checks" any time any story involves guns. And then, she brings up the straw purchase for the shooting of the Colorado corrections chief, which a universal background check would not have prevented, which is apparently...a reason for universal background checks.

    Compare to a Republican talking point to see the logic involved, where any situation is somehow support for the agenda being pushed.

    The economy is down? - We need to lower taxes!
    The economy is up? - We need to lower taxes!

    As far as the Jerry Dewitt thing goes, I'll concur with a few other people here. I've put more than 154 rounds through each gun I own, and none of them are "assault weapons". Dewitt is like someone claiming they're a good driver because they've only driven 154 miles in 58 years and wondering why anyone would ever need a car with more than a 1 gallon gas tank.

    Simply because all the other clueless non-drivers out there might think this is amazing wisdom and tweet it to all their friends does not make it any less asinine.

    •  I'll skip the deWitt discussion (14+ / 0-)

      CT will ban AWB and high capacity magazines. People do not need to own them, and after Newtown, there's consensus in CT to do this.

      The bill will be introduced Mon and voted Wed, most likely.

      http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/...

      After reviewing “chilling” details from the Newtown shooting investigation, legislative leaders from both parties plan to meet in private with rank-and-file lawmakers Monday to discuss negotiated gun control legislation. A vote on a bill is expected as early as Wednesday.

      The movement toward a vote came Thursday after prosecutors released search warrants for the ongoing investigation into the Dec. 14 murder of 20 first graders and six educators at an elementary school in Newtown.

      Legislative leaders have been working for weeks to negotiate a bipartisan bill in response to the shooting and have requested as much information as possible to inform their legislation. Leaders from both parties say they plan to meet with members on Monday.

      Both McKinney, who represents Newtown, and Williams have advocated for a ban on the possession of high-capacity magazines.

      “There are first grade parents in Newtown whose kids were able to flee that school who believe their kids lives very well may have been spared because of the changing of magazines and the time it took to reload,” McKinney said.

      The bipartisan bill will incude AWB and HCM bans because people are convinced it would have saved lives here and will elsewhere.

      You don't have to like it.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:18:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

        CT is already a very restrictive state, so this is not terribly surprising.  The Great Sorting begins.

        When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

        by Patrick Costighan on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:28:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  my guess is it will grandfather (3+ / 0-)

          already owned material.

          But the bill will pass.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:31:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

            I don't doubt it.  In fact, I believe CT could probably get away without grandfathering.  On the other hand, grandfathering makes the law even more difficult to enforce.  And eventually, 3D printing magazines and lower pressure components will make even that a dead letter.  At some point, we may even see a fight over an attempt to ban centerfire ammunition, period.

            When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

            by Patrick Costighan on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:35:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  probably could get away with no g'fathering (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Glen The Plumber, PsychoSavannah

              but the enforcement and practical aspects of it, as well as the strong desire for bipartisan support, make it less likely to be in the bill.

              "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

              by Greg Dworkin on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:37:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Greg Dworkin

                True enough.  As much as I don't like it, I don't see any other way for CT to come to grips with gun policy except to go through this experience.  I doubt it will have much practical impact one way or the other, for either gun owners or everyone else, so it will persist.

                When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                by Patrick Costighan on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:40:02 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  CA laws have had a major effect (4+ / 0-)

                  because of its size. i expect CT to have an effect as well, not because outside stuff won't show up but 1) as a model and 2) as a goad.

                  "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                  by Greg Dworkin on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:43:52 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                    I've heard this before, but I've never gotten the details on exact effects observed by the proponents of the CA gun control experience.  And over the past decade, the trend has been towards ownership liberalization, particularly where it concerns the expiration of the federal AWB, and the expansion of concealed and open carry.

                    When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                    by Patrick Costighan on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:47:23 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  here (click for bigger) (3+ / 0-)

                      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                      by Greg Dworkin on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 07:14:10 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  ... (3+ / 0-)
                        Data source: CDC National Center for Health Statistics, WONDER online database. Underlying cause of death used to select firearm deaths. Rates were calculated using census population estimates adjusted to the 2000 and 2010 US population.
                        http://sbcoalition.org/...

                        "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                        by Greg Dworkin on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 07:15:15 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Note (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Greg Dworkin

                        It is worth noting that the remarkable drop in the CA numbers started in the 1993-1994 interval, while the timetable of California laws is:

                        1989: CA Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Act (requiring registration by 1991)
                        1994: Federal Assault Weapon Ban (by which time the CA law had already been in effect for some years)
                        1994: Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

                        As best I can tell, there are no major California or Federal gun control laws that were enacted that would cause the dramatic drop starting in 1993, plus it undercuts the statements on both sides of the issue that the original assault weapon ban was toothless and had so many loopholes as to not make any difference. Or, it might be something simple like the graph being off by a year and the decline listed as being from 1993 to 1994 is actually supposed to be from 1994 to 1995, during which the two new federal laws would have been in force.

                        Since the graph lists all firearms deaths, perhaps it would be more instructive to see a graph for firearms suicides for the period shown, side-by-side with one for firearms homicides.

                        Not trying to diffuse or redirect the issue, but it seems that as presented, there are factors other than gun control laws at work here.

                        •  maybe (6+ / 0-)

                          Most likely explanation is things take a few years. In Australia it took 2 years after 1996 (Port Arthur, new gun laws) to see a change. and yes, even in Australia, the data is still challenged.

                          I do think the AWB from 1994-2004 had more to it than suggested, though still filled with loopholes.

                          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                          by Greg Dworkin on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 08:45:06 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Could be (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Greg Dworkin

                            But that does not explain the synchronicity between California and national numbers. If the CA drop is a delayed reaction to Roberti-Roos, then the national numbers should lag behind the federal ban. Instead we see a sharp CA drop at the same time as a lesser drop at the national level, and both of them level off at about the same time as well. And we do not see a corresponding rise in the national level after the expiration of the federal ban.

                            To be fair, reduced availability for a generation of young adults (the most violent cohort) could simply have convinced them that they did not need to own guns. If so, this is a demographic bubble that should be trackable using available crime data and is worth exploring. Similarly, since there has always been a racial aspect to gun control, seeing if there were any race-based changes in arrest/incarceration rates in this period would be interesting.

                            It is worth investigating if there were any other laws or major social changes outside of firearm or firearm type law that happened about the same time as the drop. Because I think we are missing something useful here. Just don't know what it is yet.

                          •  agree! (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber

                            everyone, every state should track this stuff so we can learn.

                            "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                            by Greg Dworkin on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 09:38:10 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  more on CA (5+ / 0-)

                      from Wintemute (NEJM)

                      We know that comprehensive background checks and expanded denial criteria are feasible and effective, because they are in place in many states and have been evaluated. California, for example, requires a background check on all firearm purchases and denies purchases by persons who have committed violent misdemeanors. Yet some 600,000 firearms were sold there in 2011, and the firearms industry continues to consider California a “lucrative” market. The denial policy reduced the risk of violent and firearm-related crime by 23% among those whose purchases were denied.4
                      4 Wintemute GJ, Wright MA, Drake CM, Beaumont JJ. Subsequent criminal activity among violent misdemeanants who seek to purchase handguns: risk factors and effectiveness of denying handgun purchase. JAMA 2001;285:1019-1026
                      CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

                      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                      by Greg Dworkin on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 07:20:59 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  I also expect CT to have mental health aspects (5+ / 0-)

                  which will prove useful, if not in this bill than in future bills.

                  I also expect CT to do this much better than in NY.

                  I also expect CT to highlight this as a loss for NRA and NSSF. Which it is.

                  "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                  by Greg Dworkin on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:45:54 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  oh, and one further point Shamash (8+ / 0-)

      my advice is spend more time discussing safety and not complaining about what other people are doing about safety.

      The UBC are very solid.

      We should start by requiring background checks for all firearm purchases. When a licensed retailer — gun dealer or pawnbroker — sells a firearm, a background check is performed and a permanent record is kept. But perhaps 40% of all firearms transactions involve private-party sellers, who need not keep records and cannot obtain a background check. I have observed hundreds of these anonymous, undocumented sales; they can be completed in less than a minute.

      Not surprisingly, private-party sales are the most important source of firearms for criminal buyers and specifically for persons prohibited by law from purchasing firearms. Such buyers do not volunteer their stories, and savvy sellers know not to ask. Private-party sales are also probably the main reason that the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which requires background checks for sales by licensed retailers, did not reduce firearm-related homicides.1

      Second, on at least two fronts, we should broaden our criteria for denying someone the purchase or possession of firearms.

      Good suggestions always welcome. RKBA folks talking about how ignorant the nonRKBA folks are? Not so much. The Sandy hook parents have standing in this as do Newtown residents and physicians and others who have to pick up the pieces.

      never forget that before you post ;-)

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:25:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  More than one way to discuss safety (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Greg Dworkin

        Pointing out flawed arguments and rhetorical tactics that we rightly mock when Republicans do it may not in and of itself be a productive safety suggestion, but I do think it is appropriate, unless you want the point you are trying to make to be framed as "it's only valid when our side is the one doing it."

        Witness the absolute blindness of some people on the Dewitt comment. Despite the text saying that the person very specifically had fired less than 154 rounds in their lifetime, how many commenters read that as "Dewitt had never fired 154 rounds in a 5 minute period in his lifetime".

        And when this is pointed out to people, they HR the person pointing it out to them. Multiple times.

        That is pretty much the definition of an irrational bias, and I think it is a perfectly good idea to highlight this rather than defend it. On a different issue, would you be criticizing me for talking about Todd Akin's level of knowledge (or lack thereof) of female physiology? Probably not. I would hope you would instead be calling for people to be better informed and educated on the issue. After all, I am sure that you have learned quite a bit since you started, and this knowledge has improved the quality and depth of your observations on the issue. Correct?

        An idiot on one side of an issue makes that side look as bad as an idiot on the other side does. You don't see me defending Wayne LaPierre and Ted Nugent, do you?

        On the NEJM piece, not sure what to make of it, except that we can play duelling experts all day long. After all, the recent Johns Hopkins white paper on the subject concluded that the beneficial effects of a high-capacity magazine ban would be so small as to fall into the statistical noise, yet I doubt I will see you quoting that Johns Hopkins study more than you will quote the NEJM letter to the editor.

        That too is its own form of bias. One which I can completely understand, given where you are standing, but it is bias nonetheless. For instance, take the following sentences:

        1) circumstance X is related to the transmission of disease Y
        2) circumstance X can be reduced by doing Z
        3) doing Z has no measureable effect on the transmission rate of disease Y

        As a doctor, how much sense does this make to you? Because that is the material you quoted above and gave full credibility.

        1) illegal gun transfers are related to firearms homicides
        2) retailer background checks reduce illegal gun transfers
        3) retailer background checks have no effect on firearm-related homicides

        That is not the logic I would use if trying to make a case for a more stringent application of Z.

        Just because you (or I) support a particular position, it does not mean we should apply a less rigorous level of scrutiny to that position. In terms of a UBC, we probably agree on most of it and differ merely on details and implementation, but that does not mean either of us should automatically assume that "we agree" means "we're right".

        •  fair point about dewitt (3+ / 0-)

          i didn't discuss it because I'm not qualified to make pronouncements, other than 154 rounds in 5 minutes is too much regardless of how many you shot off in your life, your week, or your training... and that was not dewitt.

          As far as your faulty analogy goes, I can tell you

          1. the experts are pretty clear on UBCB and there's no duel between experts there.
          2. the tricky questions are
           a. gun ownership (itself a risk)? debatable but not wrong or right
           b. awb and high capacity magazine bans - debatable but not wrong or right

          You picked the wrong fight about your syllogism analogy. here's how it actually works with public health: you see deaths, you collect the best data possible, you act before you reach perfection of the data in order to save lives.

          Rachel Weintraub, director of product safety at the Consumer Federation of America, said the Buckyballs campaign was simply an effort to shift the focus away from safety. “The essence here is safety, that children are being injured in horrendous ways,” she said. “It is classic industry strategy: changing the subject, attacking the messenger.”

          Mr. Zucker prefers to cast the issue as one of fairness. “This is an issue about when can consumers make a decision to buy an adult product?” he said. “It’s a good fight. And it’s a fight I think we can win.”

          He lost.

          Arguing to "not do something" because the "data is not perfect" is sophistry, an intent to obscure and delay. Not saying that's what you are doing but your analogy has certainly been used for that purpose.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 09:27:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  as far as the hopkins data goes (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber

          their recommendations (you misread or misremember their data):

          http://hub.jhu.edu/...

          Assault Weapons

          Ban the future sale of assault weapons, incorporating a more carefully crafted definition to reduce the risk—compared with the 1994 ban—that the law can be easily evaded.
          High Capacity Magazines

          Ban the future sale and possession of large capacity (greater than 10 rounds) ammunition magazines.

          * These recommendations represent the consensus of the experts presenting at the Johns Hopkins Gun Policy Summit. However, it may not be the case that every expert endorsed every specific recommendation.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 09:35:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Actually, different study (0+ / 0-)

            I never said I disagreed with you on background checks, just saying that the very material you quoted as an argument in favor of background checks was a really poor argument to support it. Saying "what we propose to do has had no effect, so we should do it even more" is not going to convince people who are trying to make their mind up on the issue.

            On the Buckyballs, we had this discussion earlier and I consider it notable that you never replied to my comment that only one brand of that item was banned. The exact same item can be bought in bulk elsewhere completely legally. Again, that makes it a very poor argument if you translate it into gun control terms ("we're going to ban exactly one model of assault rifle and exactly one brand of high-capacity magazine").

            For Johns Hopkins, I was referring to this paper from the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy Research, with the following quote regarding a high-capacity magazine ban:

            Even if the ban eventually prevented only 1 of every 5 of the five percent of incidents in which large capacity magazines are relevant, that would translate into about 100 fewer homicides and 500 people wounded by gunshots per year. Such effects would not be definitively detectable with national data
            While I agree with their further sentiment that any life saved is significant (especially to that person), that is not in and of itself validation for a ban, otherwise we would ban alcohol (again) and cars and cigarettes and knives and everything else in this country that would save more than 100 lives per year if they were banned.

            I do not think we have so much a difference in belief as a difference in where to draw the line and why. After all, your stated position is that people should be allowed to own guns, which means you are willing accept a certain degree of gun violence as part of that belief. As am I. Just as I suppose you, I and just about everyone reading this accept that alcohol should be legal, despite it being a factor in quite a bit of harm done.

            That background checks of some sort are a good idea, we agree. My only problem is that you are using bad arguments to advance the idea. On a ban of high-capacity magazines, where "high" is by all admissions a completely arbitrary number (8 in NY, 16 in CO, 11 proposed by you, etc.), on that we disagree. And apparently, so do the experts.

            •  you are misinformed on rare earth magnets (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RiveroftheWest

              http://www.nytimes.com/...

              The agency is also pursuing similar claims against two other companies, Zen Magnets of Denver and Star Networks USA of Fairfield, N.J., which sells Magnicube Magnet Balls and Magnet Cubes. Star Networks had agreed to stop selling its products but reversed its decision, Mr. Wolfson said.

              Company officials could not be reached for comment.

              Shihan Qu, founder of Zen Magnets, said the company was considering selling the magnets individually, rather than in packs of a few dozen, as a possible way to avoid a clampdown by federal regulators.

              if it's small enough to go in a child's mouth it will be forced off the market.

              You are also apparently misinformed about what the experts think, since the consensus opinion is clearly and simply

              Ban the future sale and possession of large capacity (greater than 10 rounds) ammunition magazines.
              I don't know why you are claiming otherwise, except for arguing for the sake of arguing.

              And just because you claim the data is weak doesn't make the data weak. it's strong enough to act, but further data would be welcome.

              After all, your stated position is that people should be allowed to own guns, which means you are willing accept a certain degree of gun violence as part of that belief. As am I. Just as I suppose you, I and just about everyone reading this accept that alcohol should be legal, despite it being a factor in quite a bit of harm done.
              I don't take issue with that, I'm not working to get all guns and ammo banned. I want certain guns and ammo banned. And I want them kept out the hands of of people who will do damage (Wintemute's main points).  Sure we disagree about some stuff (that's allowed). We agree about a whole lot, too. ;-)

              I don't expect guns to disappear. I expect them to be used responsibly, and like Buckyballs, the best way to see that happen is to take steps to limit egregious use.

              "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

              by Greg Dworkin on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 10:59:07 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Arbitrary law is bad until demonstrated otherwise (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                andalusi

                The calls for high-capacity magazines have exactly one thing in common, and that is that they are entirely arbitrary. Why is the limit in NY 7, in CO 15 and your preference 10? Are there competing studies of the epidemiology of shooting incidents, showing that one of these is a magic number and the others are based on some faulty interpretation of the data?

                Is the actual magic number determined by rigorous research a value of 10.7 and someone just decided to round it to 10? If 10 is the right number, can we expect to hear you calling for the NY numbers to be repealed as 30% too restrictive?

                No, as far I can tell, 7, 10 and 15 are totally arbitrary numbers, made up by congressmen or state legislatures based on a self-serving calculation of "how much will get gun control people to vote for us?" and "how low can we go without losing the votes of gun advocates?" Do you really think the NY legislature wrestled with scientific studies, and argued about significance values and sampling error and standard deviations? Or do you think they said "Hmmm, the Colt .45 has a 7 round magazine. We can't go any lower than that or we'll piss off no end of people."

                After all, if the magazine limits were based on something substantial, you, NY and CO would be in closer agreement on the value and the most bandied about restriction limit would be something other than the defining value in a base10 arithmetic system...

                I would have thought that 8 years of Bush would have made people loathe arbitrary laws like the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, national security letter gag orders, etc. ad nauseam. Apparently not.

                So yeah, I'll oppose a 10 round arbitrary magazine limit just I would oppose most other arbitrary feel-good laws.  I'm just not into that whole "let's pass a law and then figure out if it was a good idea" thing.

                •  LOL (0+ / 0-)

                  you mean there's politics involved with passing laws?

                  Holy crap. Someone tell the folks at Daily Kos. I bet they don't know that.

                  here again, your point seems to be "hold out for unobtainable certainty until another massacre happens". Sorry, no can do. Rejected by the state of CT and the citizens of Newtown. The number is 10.

                  And if it's 15 in CO to get the bill passed, bless them, it's 15.

                  "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                  by Greg Dworkin on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 01:49:33 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No, it's not (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    andalusi
                    your point seems to be "hold out for unobtainable certainty until another massacre happens"
                    I've never said that or even implied it. My point is to ask (more than once) for some actual evidence that the number you have chosen is based on something more significant than the number of fingers you have.

                    Thus far, you have come up short.

                    Come on. Wouldn't it be nice if you could pull out CDC and FBI and other data and say "if we reduced magazine size to 10 we could save five times as many people as were murdered by rifles in the entire country last year".

                    (number chosen because that's about how many people were stabbed to death by completely unregulated knives, by the way).

                    If the numbers are out there, use them
                    . If they are not, then you have nothing to support your argument except wishful thinking.

                    •  and the word of LEO and parents in Sandy Hook (0+ / 0-)

                      who saw a few kids get away and Mark Kelley who says Jared  Loughner was tackled when he had to reload, and consensus expert opinion. All of that is documentable. link

                      Loughner stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it.[24] Another bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a folding chair, injuring his elbow in the process, representing the 14th injury.[25] Loughner was tackled to the ground by 74-year-old retired United States Army Colonel Bill Badger,[26] who had been shot himself, and was further subdued by Maisch and bystanders Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio. Zamudio was a CCW holder and had a weapon on his person, but arrived after the shooting had stopped and did not draw his firearm.[27] Zamudio later stated that he initially mistook the identity of the shooter and had considered drawing his weapon before realizing that individual was not the shooter.[28]
                      As to:
                      Come on. Wouldn't it be nice if you could pull out CDC and FBI and other data and say "if we reduced magazine size to 10 we could save five times as many people as were murdered by rifles in the entire country last year"
                      Yes, I wish data collection hadn't been blocked, and fuck the knife analogy. Or cars or any other stupid analogy that will just get people pissed at you. if you need to do x for heart disease it doesn't matter about y for cancer.

                      You know this as well as I do. That is way more than enough to act while the gnomes figure out what's optimal.

                      There's going to be a number. Pick one and make your best case for it. In CT it's 10, in CO it's 15. Try not to pick 7 or 8 1/2 as in NY.

                      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                      by Greg Dworkin on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 02:56:42 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  and with that (0+ / 0-)

                      have a great easter/passover, Shamash, best to you and yours.

                      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                      by Greg Dworkin on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 03:07:08 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  you also left out the conclusion from your cite (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RiveroftheWest

              that such a change (banning LCMs) would be "meaningful". The newer consensus study is more definitive and recommends the change.

              "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

              by Greg Dworkin on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 11:05:15 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Asterisk (0+ / 0-)

                Actually, I referenced the meaningful part in the sentence directly after the quote. But as long as we are mentioning things not referenced, you said "I don't know why you are claiming otherwise, except for arguing for the sake of arguing."

                * These recommendations represent the consensus of the experts presenting at the Johns Hopkins Gun Policy Summit. However, it may not be the case that every expert endorsed every specific recommendation.
                So, when I say the words "on that we disagree. And apparently, so do the experts.", it is not because I am arguing for the sake of arguing, it is because I am referencing the paper you quoted.
                •  sigh (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Shamash

                  consensus means just that, and you're disagreeing with the consensus.

                  I am sure you can find someone to agree with you. It's still not the consensus opinion.

                  "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                  by Greg Dworkin on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 01:45:05 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  True enough (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    andalusi

                    I've just got enough history under my belt to know that "majority does not equal correct", and a belief that democracy should be more than "two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch."

                    I find it significant that the Johns Hopkins Gun Policy Summit experts differed in opinion to the extent that the final statement could not be said to have been endorsed by other than with a term that means "general agreement". Not "near-unanimous", not "great majority", "clear majority" or even "majority". Consensus.

                    You and I have a consensus that some reform in gun laws is a good thing. That is an accurate use of the word consenus. Now that we have a consensus...

                    it may not be the case that every expert endorsed every specific recommendation.
                    Does framing it in terms of our discussion make what "consensus" means in terms of specific policy recommendations a little clearer?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site