Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics.............well.....

We already have tools in place yet they are not utilized properly or enforced. Both sides will argue thier statistics and numbers while spinning the proverbial wheels of justice. If the agenda of politicians is to disarm citizens then by all means implement the bans. If on the other hand the agenda is to reduce incidents of so called gun crime then there has to be discussion on what can be done with the existing structure of checks and balances that I like to call tools. No ban or restriction will keep madmen or mentally deranged killers from accomplishing thier task. These types of bans serve only to restrict the law abiding citizen.

I submit the following for your consideration. I acknowledge the ideas presented may sound hypocrital in some instances. You wont find any numbers to debate about though. "(= sarcasm)"


-The instant background check could be strengthend if structured in a way that was more effective.
Mental health professionals should be able to submit names to the database who are clinicaly evaluated to be a danger to others. This should carry penalties for not submitting names as they would have willfully allowed a person to possible endanger the public at large. (Major Nidal Malik Hasan) There should also be a provision to be removed from the list if further evaluated and no longer considered a danger.

The instant check system somtimes flags people who are not a risk, there should be a provision to be instantly cleared if you are inadvertantly flagged.
All states should use the current instant check system in place now the data base is already established we need to hone this tool to use it effectively.

-Eddie Eagle should be part of a Mentor Program for young children.
This is a good program but is often dismissed as indoctrination as it is associated with the NRA. It is very often a free program and does not require any special education to implement.
(any parent volunteers?)

-Private sellers should be able to do thier own instant checks voluntarily not as a mandate. As a C&R collector I cannot do these checks, I must be a "dealer of firearms", further if I did try to use the instant check system I could be prosocuted for wrongful use. The e-check system is easy to set up and use and can be expanded for use by folks who are not "dealers". If you offer choices instead of mandates people tend to respond better.

-The media should be restricted with regard to reporting these so called "news events" and sensationalizing them for whatever reason. Call it a "cooling off or waiting period" (sound familiar?)
The 24 hour news entertainment is culpable but can not be held liable or accountable, yet the gov wants further restrictions on inanimate objects. (scratchin' my head still)

-Gun control is not crime control (rocket science here) The criminal element will not give up thier guns, there is no incentive. I would submit the risk of a criminal getting caught goes down when you disarm the LAC. The potential reward for the criminal goes up as they encounter less resistance.


In the months coming we will hear lots of numbers and statistics but until the root of the problem is addressed they are just lies, damn lies and statistics. Each side is entitled to thier own opinion even if it is wrong.

Stay Safe

~Whitney

Your ideas seem well thought out and reasonable to me... but the government has great difficulty understanding well thought out and reasonable plans. Pax...

Gil223 said:

Your ideas seem well thought out and reasonable to me... but the government has great difficulty understanding well thought out and reasonable plans. Pax...

Click to expand...

our governments motto...

"if it aint broke, fix it till it is broke."

good ideas though

Whitney said:

We already have tools in place yet they are not utilized properly or enforced. Both sides will argue thier statistics and numbers while spinning the proverbial wheels of justice. If the agenda of politicians is to disarm citizens then by all means implement the bans. If on the other hand the agenda is to reduce incidents of so called gun crime then there has to be discussion on what can be done with the existing structure of checks and balances that I like to call tools. No ban or restriction will keep madmen or mentally deranged killers from accomplishing thier task. These types of bans serve only to restrict the law abiding citizen.

I submit the following for your consideration. I acknowledge the ideas presented may sound hypocrital in some instances. You wont find any numbers to debate about though. "(= sarcasm)"


-The instant background check could be strengthend if structured in a way that was more effective.
Mental health professionals should be able to submit names to the database who are clinicaly evaluated to be a danger to others. This should carry penalties for not submitting names as they would have willfully allowed a person to possible endanger the public at large. (Major Nidal Malik Hasan) There should also be a provision to be removed from the list if further evaluated and no longer considered a danger.

Click to expand...

Mental health professionals already have this ability. It's called reporting the danger to the courts and signing a warrant for a mental status exam. Get two other doctors to agree that someone is a danger to themself or others, tell the judge why, and if the judge agrees they sign a form involuntarily committing the person. Allowing a single individual, especially when their profession is rife with those known to be anti-gun, to have the power to strip an individual of one (or more) of their fundamental rights is, to put it mildly, terrifying.

The instant check system somtimes flags people who are not a risk, there should be a provision to be instantly cleared if you are inadvertantly flagged.
All states should use the current instant check system in place now the data base is already established we need to hone this tool to use it effectively.

Click to expand...

The process exists. After going through it the first time (cumbersome and slow) you can sail past the initial "not approved" with relative ease.

-Eddie Eagle should be part of a Mentor Program for young children.
This is a good program but is often dismissed as indoctrination as it is associated with the NRA. It is very often a free program and does not require any special education to implement.
(any parent volunteers?)

Click to expand...

Why are you looking for volunteers? Do others subject-matter teachers do it for free? If this is so important, treat it that way and pay for it. (And either clear it with the NRA or be willing to look like a plagerizing dork (like Virginia) when you only change the name of the mascot character.)

-Private sellers should be able to do thier own instant checks voluntarily not as a mandate. As a C&R collector I cannot do these checks, I must be a "dealer of firearms", further if I did try to use the instant check system I could be prosocuted for wrongful use. The e-check system is easy to set up and use and can be expanded for use by folks who are not "dealers". If you offer choices instead of mandates people tend to respond better.

Click to expand...

Why? Are you also in favor of instant checks for private sales of automobiles because the purchaser may have a history of drunk driving? Are youalso in favor of instant checks for private sales of ham radio equipment because the purchaser might use it to broadcast treason or sedition?

-The media should be restricted with regard to reporting these so called "news events" and sensationalizing them for whatever reason. Call it a "cooling off or waiting period" (sound familiar?)
The 24 hour news entertainment is culpable but can not be held liable or accountable, yet the gov wants further restrictions on inanimate objects. (scratchin' my head still)

Click to expand...

Another fundamental right you are willing to throw under the bus? As much as news of events such as the Sandy Hook shooting upset me, I want to know about them. As for the penchant of the reportologists (print and TV) and their editors who sensationalize the events - let the public market deal with them. Otherwise you are restricting a fundamental right even though the majority has no problem with the way these events are sensationalized.

What to do about how upset you become because of the sensationalizing? Write and tell the folks responsible how abhorrent you find their behavior.

-Gun control is not crime control (rocket science here) The criminal element will not give up thier guns, there is no incentive. I would submit the risk of a criminal getting caught goes down when you disarm the LAC. The potential reward for the criminal goes up as they encounter less resistance.


In the months coming we will hear lots of numbers and statistics but until the root of the problem is addressed they are just lies, damn lies and statistics. Each side is entitled to thier own opinion even if it is wrong.

Stay Safe

~Whitney

Click to expand...

Your premise, I think, can be summed up as: "We have to do something!" What I notice is that the things you propose do not address at all the enforcement of existing laws, nor do they provide any way or means for the actual physical protection of potential child or adult victims.

stay safe.

Why "do" anything? From my perspective "the system" seems to be working just fine. What does not work from time to time is the bureaucrats that are charged with operating the system. If something must be done, hold those charged with operating the system accountable for "falling asleep at the wheel."

A recurring theme here on OCDO is a call to hold LE accountable, and severely so, for the transgressions of their members. Progress has been made on that issue. Yet, "no one" wants to hold the chick down at the DMV accountable for reissuing a DL to a habitual drunk driver.

Another case of "blaming" the thing (system) and not blaming the citizen who uses the thing.

Some interesting posts here. Let me make a couple of points:

1. Our opposition is not dealing in logic or in honest statistical evidence. They are dealing largely in emotional appeals (Think of the children!!).
2. The politicians who are buying into our opposition's rhetoric are of two varieties; those who work mostly on an emotional basis and those who wish to see the American citizenry disarmed so that they may garner even more power over the masses.

I will caution each and every one of you not to fall into the emotional appeal trap. Yes, it does exist on our side of the fence and is just as treacherous as the same variety of trap on the other side. Do not play the opposition's game with them. Do research and have the facts available, especially from unbiased sources, to refute the emotional appeals.

One other point: Hold your legislators at all levels responsible if they lend credence to infringing on the rights this country was founded on.

well......

That did not take long. I was hoping my hypocrital disclaimer wouldnt get my in too hot water.

There are many people in this country that are "on the fence" so to speak. Not all of them have made up thier mind where they stand and want someone to do something.
I detailed some points that on the surface don't sound too bad, depending on which side of the fence you are on. It has been clearly pointed out there is more at stake here than gun rights.

An exercise in emotional responses, and be careful what you ask for.

~Whitney

Whitney said:

That did not take long. I was hoping my hypocrital disclaimer wouldnt get my in too hot water.

There are many people in this country that are "on the fence" so to speak. Not all of them have made up thier mind where they stand and want someone to do something.
I detailed some points that on the surface don't sound too bad, depending on which side of the fence you are on. It has been clearly pointed out there is more at stake here than gun rights.

An exercise in emotional responses, and be careful what you ask for.

~Whitney

Click to expand...

Since there are around five (5) times as many unregistered readers as registered ones on OCDO at any given time, and since we know that the antis not only read OCDO but quote posts (often out of context in order to be as damaging as possible) there is a certain "concern" that suggestions for solutions to problems are well-grounded in preserving our right to keep and bear arms. I'm sure you would be apalled to see one of your suggestions being touted by the Bradys as "proof" that even the gun owners are in favor of blaming the object as opposed to blaming the behavior.

I read and interpret

I submit the following for your consideration. I acknowledge the ideas presented may sound hypocrital in some instances. You wont find any numbers to debate about though. "(= sarcasm)"

Click to expand...

as the "= sarcasm" indicator referring only to the inability to debate numbers - and thus the body as not being sarcasm. And that is most likely how the antis will interpret it.

stay safe.

Whitney said:

That did not take long. I was hoping my hypocritical disclaimer wouldn't get my in too hot water.

There are many people in this country that are "on the fence" so to speak. Not all of them have made up thier mind where they stand and want someone to do something.
I detailed some points that on the surface don't sound too bad, depending on which side of the fence you are on. It has been clearly pointed out there is more at stake here than gun rights.

An exercise in emotional responses, and be careful what you ask for.

~Whitney

Click to expand...

I have no facts/statistics to support my claim that the "fence sitters" are those who do not own a firearm but I believe that fence sitters are those who do not own a firearm for self defense. But, just as the "independent voter" is purported to decide elections, so to do gun owners. The tragedy in Newtown, me thinks, has encouraged some number of fence sitters to make a choice and that choice seems to have been to contribute to the spike in firearm sales. Former fence sitters increase the numbers of those who no longer will rely upon police or schools to protect themselves and their children.

Discussions regarding the arming of teachers and staff is now a serious subject. I can only conclude that the anti-liberty crowd are on their last leg regarding our natural right to self defense and more importantly, to the former fence sitters, the defense of their children.

Did not look at that angle.

skidmark said:

Since there are around five (5) times as many unregistered readers as registered ones on OCDO at any given time, and since we know that the antis not only read OCDO but quote posts (often out of context in order to be as damaging as possible) there is a certain "concern" that suggestions for solutions to problems are well-grounded in preserving our right to keep and bear arms. I'm sure you would be apalled to see one of your suggestions being touted by the Bradys as "proof" that even the gun owners are in favor of blaming the object as opposed to blaming the behavior.

I read and interpret
as the "= sarcasm" indicator referring only to the inability to debate numbers - and thus the body as not being sarcasm. And that is most likely how the antis will interpret it.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Your analysis was excellent as usual. Your point is well taken, Thank You.

~Whitney