Sort of good news - long

[Steve Richards]

This was in the local paper today. "The Oregonian" Friday October 3,2003. Page A7. Conservatives call the paper too liberal and liberals call the paper too conservative.

From the Associated Press by Kristen Wyatt

Atlanta- A federal review of the nation's gun control laws, including mandatory waiting periods and bans on certain weapons, found no proof they reduce firearm violence.

The national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention appointed a task force of scientists to conduct the review, which could be used to undercut the gun-control movement.

The CDC said the report, released Thursday, suggests more study is needed, not that gun laws don't work. But the agency said it has no plans to spend more money on firearms study.

Some conservatives have said the CDC should limit itself to studying diseases, and some have complained in the pst that the agency has used firearms-tracking data to subtly push gun-control laws.

In fact, since a 1996 fight in Congress, the CDC has been prohibitited from using funds to press for gun-control laws.

Since then, the task force reviewd 51 published studies about the effectiveness of eight types of gun-control laws. The laws included bans on specific firearms or ammunition, measures barring felons from buying guns and mandatory waiting periods and firearm registration.

None of the studies was done by the federal government.

In every case, a CDC task force found "insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness."

Most of the studies weren't financed by the CDC. Gun-control advocates quickly called on the government to pay for better research.

NRA PLANS REVIEW

"There have not been enough good surveys to know whether these laws work, and that's a very sad and troubling fact," said Peter Hamill, spokesman for the Brady Campain to Prevent Gun Violence.

The National Rifle Association said it needed more time to review the report before commenting on it.

The task force complained that many of the studies were inconsistent, too narrow, or poorly done. Among the problems:

*Studies on firearms bans and ammunition bans were inconsistent. Some showed the bans decreased vioilence; others found the bans actually increased vioilence. Many firearm bans grant exemptions to people who already owned the weapons, making it hard to tell how well a ban worked. Other evidence showed that firearms sales go up right before bans take effect.

*Studies on background checks were also inconsistent, with some showing decreased firearm injuries and others showing increased injuries. A big problem with those studies was that "denial of an application does not always stop applicants from acquiring firearms through other means," the report said.

*Only four studies examined the effectiveniss of firearm registraion on violent outcomed, and all of the findings were inconsistent.

*Study periods often are too narrow to tell whether gun laws work. The task force noted that "rates of violence may affect the passage of firearms laws, and firearms laws may then affect rates of vioilence."
----------------

This was rather long but I though it to be important and did not want to edit and inadvertanly leave out something important. It is not all good for gun owners but certainly not what gun banners want.

We should not let the anti-gunners win the terminology battle. The person who chooses the words used has a big head start. Lets make it clear that there is a difference between gun-control and gun-bans. Blocking convicted felons from owning guns is control. Blocking all ownership is banning. Keep the difference clear!

[Herb]

Steve, good article, thanks for posting it for us. Hitler, Stalin, and others used gun confiscation and banned ownership, history shows us how that ended.

[John Sabato]

Thanks Steve... I didn't run across this article in any of the media over the weekend... isn't that strange?

[Johnny C. Kitchens]

They actually had it on a local news broadcast. They provided veiws feom both sides. The gun control group appears to be better prepared for a response. They said domestic violence had gone down since the Brady law had gone into effect, and couldn't see how that could be ignored. I was thinking, they are ignoring all the concealed carry laws that have been passed since then...

[policeluger]

It was also on CNN over the weekend.

[Big Norm]

What a change from the Clinton days when the CDC claimed that gun accidents were a form of disease. Actually, all forms of background checks, waiting periods on so on are useless because, by law, the mentally ill and unstable will not show up on any background check. It has been declared an invasion of privacy for doctors to tell anyone. Plus a mentally ill person could be alright as long as they are on their medication, but many stop taking their medication and become dangerous. This is the loophole and not gun shows.
Big Norm

[Heydrich]

Steve, The Oregonian is a great newspaper. It has always struck me as being a bit on the conservative side. But I think it’s kind of funny they publish the Science section like once a week or less, but the Astrology (horoscopes) and comic’s sections everyday. What’s your opinion of the Sports section? I find much of the coverage they devote to the troubles with the Trail Blazers comical. I mean how can they defend someone (i.e. Blazer point guard) who tried to walk through an airport metal detector with a tinfoil bag of weed?

.

[lugerholsterrepair]

In all cases the weapons were banned types in any event - we have NEVER been able to own fully-automatic weapons of any kind here in UK - there is simply no justification for ownership - we don't have that kind of culture and never did.

Tac, What type of culture is that? I enjoy shooting full auto weapons and never thought of it as a culture that a whole country would despise. We have shoots in AZ where hundreds of full auto weapons are displayed and shot. It's always been a lot of fun to me. Jerry Burney

.

[policeluger]

Tac, please stay on, I like too hear of our differences in gun culture, even thought I have my self have not always agreed with you. I took it too be that you did not share in the roaring '20 as we did. Nor did you have the western wild west as we, but that you still have a fondness for the shooting sport as we do.

[Steve Richards]

Tacfoley,

I think that this falls into a quote that I have heard attributed to Winston Churchill that went something like "We are two countries sepparated by a common language." What goes into one side of the Atlantic can come out the other side as totally different.

Heydrich,

I think that the Oregonian is quite conservative also. Not so much politicaly as it bows to the business interests at all time. They even made national news one time a couple of years back when they ran a big article on how to get the best deal on a new car. An entire day's run was printed and on the loading docks when on of the large car dealerships got wind of the piece and called the editor. The printed copies were trucked to the dump and new ones printed without the offending article! But it is all that we have for a statewide paper and they sometimes let something through that really surprises me.

Steve

[Ron Wood]

Dear highly respected and more than a little â??steamedâ?? Tac,

Sometimes oneâ??s viewpoint is not clearly understood, because the listener does not share the same point from which to view. Misinterpretation of words is not uncommon when reading because the tone and inflection of the â??speakerâ?� is not conveyed in the written word. Taken in the context which you have so clearly, and sadly, outlined in your last post, your former statement of â??â?¦we have NEVER been able to own fully-automatic weapons of any kind here in UK - there is simply no justification for ownership - we don't have that kind of culture and never didâ?� is totally without rancor or insult. However, I hope that you can also see that â??â?¦there is simply no justification for ownership - we don't have that kind of culture and never didâ?� can be considered to sound a bit like a putdown to folks that are constantly on the defensive (and may tend to over react) against city-dwelling liberals who make similar comments and put gun ownership and shooting on a par with the most base criminal activity.

Your comments and insights on the forum are very much enjoyed and I hope that you are not really considering departing over this misunderstanding. I am not above resorting to blackmail to get you to stay. If you leave, I swear I will draw a handlebar mustache on Ig and circulate the rumor that he was the star of several films made in Tijuana. Surely you wish to spare him this â??igâ??nominy.

[Heydrich]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by tacfoley:
<strong>we have NEVER been able to own fully-automatic weapons of any kind here in UK - there is simply no justification for ownership - we don't have that kind of culture and never did. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Tac, that statement implies US culture is such. No one I know in RL owns a machine gun (at least who’ll admit it), nor have I ever heard live automatic fire around where I live. Even between 1918 and 1934, civilian machine guns were very rare, as most people couldn’t afford a Tommy gun or a BAR. Besides the last time the Oregon National Guard carried unloaded M16 rifles in a parade years ago, (and one mentioned afterwards he felt ridiculous) I don’t think I’ve seen a full auto obviously carried in public. Even the last time I went to the airport. Now Israel, there’s a machine gun culture. I guess this “machine gun” reputation for the US comes via the American gangsters and bandits of the 20’s and early 30’s, who were the most well armed and dangerous criminals ever up to that time.

I’m also perplexed by something. You keep constantly re-iterating how the UK is, and has been basically a non-gun culture, and that “shooting is not a thing people do” as you wrote. (Um, did you forget Northern Ireland?) If you’re obviously so proud of this core cultural heritage, how can you possibly keep getting upset that the UK government took it a step further and embraced the concept?

[Ron Wood]

Thank you tac. Sure glad I didn't have to use this.

[PACKET]

"The CDC said the report, released Thursday, suggests more study is needed, not that gun laws don't work. But the agency said it has no plans to spend more money on firearms study."

This paragraph prooves that the anti-gun crowd will never stop, and that its not about crime control, its about citizen control.

[Lugerdoc]

Tac, IMHO it was the British abuse of us Colonials in the 18th century, that caused our pananoia of an unarmed population and directly resulted in the second amendment to our Constitution. Also for the next 100 years, we were in part, a pioneering nation, fighting nature, wild animals and Indians. I'm afraid that this "Cowboy" mystic has perpertuated itself to this very day, just look a some of our leaders, G.W. Bush, Arnold S, etc. and our recent actions in Iraq and Afganistan. I hate to admit it, but we are now acting like 18th century Englishmen. Rule Britania, oops, rather "Pax Americana". TH

[Heydrich]

Tac, you should have left in your original reply to me. That was a great post. And wouldn’t it take all the fun out of it if we didn’t comment on the asinine and unpalatable behavior of other people?

[Johnny C. Kitchens]

I seem to be missing out on this coversation. Of all of TAC's post above, only the last is readable by me. Have I been blocked or something???

[Edward Tinker]

I would imagine that Tac deleted his own posts, he must have gotten carried away with his humor ...