tumblr page counter
Si vis discussiōne, para factum. • Posts Tagged ‘rightsided’
The following is the ask I sent to him in response: Not if you buy from a private citizens, of course most dealers at guns shows are licensed dealers. Although, if you go to a gun show (or ever a gun store) to buy an actual assault rifle (a machine gun), a silencer or short barreled shotgun (NFA firearms and devices) then you will have to follow NFA laws, a process that takes around 6 months before you can take possession of the gun/device. (For a full outline of that process look at my post 48169451393) Now, back to the stats on that crap sample.
Pop-upView Separately

The following is the ask I sent to him in response:

Not if you buy from a private citizens, of course most dealers at guns shows are licensed dealers. Although, if you go to a gun show (or ever a gun store) to buy an actual assault rifle (a machine gun), a silencer or short barreled shotgun (NFA firearms and devices) then you will have to follow NFA laws, a process that takes around 6 months before you can take possession of the gun/device. (For a full outline of that process look at my post 48169451393) Now, back to the stats on that crap sample.

brooklynmutt, this is my reply to your response; I do hope you take the time to watch it.

There is also this article:

The White House says the figure comes from a 1997 Institute of Justice report, written by Philip Cook of Duke University and Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago. This study is based on data collected from a survey in 1994, just the Brady law requirements for background checks was coming into effect. (In fact, the questions concerned purchases in 1993 and 1994, while Brady law went into effect in early 1994.) In other words, this is a really old figure.

The data is available for researchers to explore at the Interuniversity consortium on political and social research (ICPSR) at the University of Michigan. Digging deeper, we find that the survey sample was just 251 people. (The survey was done by telephone, using a random-digit-dial method, with a response rate of 50 percent.) With this sample size, the 95 percent confidence interval will be plus or minus 6 percentage points.

Moreover, when asked if he or she bought from a licensed firearms dealer, the possible answers included “probably was/think so” and “probably not,” leaving open the possibility the purchaser was mistaken. (The “probably not” answers were counted as “no.”)

When all of the “yes” and “probably was” answers were added together, that left 35.7 percent of respondents indicating they did not receive the gun from a licensed firearms dealer. Rounding up gets you to 40 percent, though as we noted the survey sample is so small it could also be rounded down to 30 percent.

Moreover, when gifts, inheritances and prizes are added in, then the number shrinks to 26.4 percent. (The survey showed that nearly 23.8 percent of the people surveyed obtained their gun either as a gift or inherited it, and about half of them believed a licensed firearms dealer was the source.)

Cook and Ludwig, in a lengthier 1996 study of the data for the Police Foundation, acknowledge the ambiguity in the answers, but gave their best estimate as a range of 30 to 40 percent for transactions in the “off-the-books” secondary market. (The shorter 1997 study cited by the White House does not give a range, but instead says “approximately 60 percent of gun acquisitions” involved a licensed dealer.)

Interestingly, while people often speak of the “gun show loophole,” the data in this 1994 survey shows that only 3.9 percent of firearm purchases were made at gun shows.

Ludwig acknowledged that “our estimate is clearly not perfect.” He said that a larger sample size would have provided a more precise estimate of off-the-books transactions, but he and Cook were not involved in the design stage of the survey. He added that one reason why the data is so old is because the federal government has generally stopped funding such research.

“While there is no perfect estimate in social science, we’d have a better estimate for this proportion had the federal government not decided to get out of the business of supporting research on guns and gun violence several years ago,” he said.

Ludwig and Cook were among the social scientists who signed a letter to Biden earlier this month calling on ending barriers to firearms research. The letter includes an interesting figure, comparing how many National Institute of Health awards have been given for firearms research versus infectious diseases.

Major NIH research awards and cumulative morbidity for select conditions in the US, 1973–2012

Condition Total cases NIH research awards

Cholera 400 212

Diphtheria 1337 56

Polio 266 129

Rabies 65 89

Total of four diseases 2068 486

Firearm injuries >4,000,000 3

One of the executive orders signed by Obama on Jan. 16 directed the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence, based on a legal analysis that congressional restrictions on spending money to advocate for gun control does not apply to such inquiries.

There is a bit of irony here. While the 40-percent figure appears overstated and out of date, it remains the most cited statistic on the secondary market because foes of gun control have thwarted extensive research on guns. Advocates of gun controls thus continue to rely on a flawed statistic nearly two decades old.

Cook and Ludwig, in a paper that released this month at a gun-violence conference hosted by the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, found that there appears to be little or no impact from the Brady law in reducing the homicide rate, even though government officials (such as Obama) routinely tout the number of people prevented from buying guns because of background checks.

“One explanation is that the type of person who is disqualified from legally buying a gun but shops at FFL [dealer with a federal firearms license] anyway tends to be at relatively low risk for misusing a gun,” Cook and Ludwig write in “The Limited Impact of the Brady Act: Evaluation and Implications.”

So is there any other, recent data that might provide some insight into the impact of the off-the-books gun market?

Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, will report data from a 2004 survey of inmates in state prisons in a chapter in a book titled “Reducing Gun Violence in America,” to be published Jan. 28 by Johns Hopkins Press.

The offenders were incarcerated from crimes committed with handguns, and this is how they reported how they obtained the guns:

Licensed gun dealer: 11 percent

Friends or family: 39.5 percent

“The street:” 37.5 percent

Stolen gun: 9.9 percent

Gun show/Flea market: 1.7 percent

In other words, only a relatively small percentage was purchased from licensed dealers. Obama’s proposal on universal background checks, however, allows for “limited, common-sense exceptions for cases like certain transfers between family members and temporary transfers for hunting and sporting purposes.”

canadian-liberal:

rightsided:

canadian-liberal:

Why Christians are Conservative

Because both require you to replace logic and knowledge with blind faith.

Also conservatives make terrible christians.

image

Whenever you want to debate or argue this point let me know. Until then you prove my point in a way I never could.

1) Not a Christian

2) You claim that both Conservatives and Christians do not use logic or knowledge, yet your original post is only based in your emotional opinion.

pulchra-et-libratum:

rightsided:

thedarkchocolatedandy:

rightsided:

Ohio State University: For 150 years (1500-1650) more White Christian slaves traded in North Africa, than African slaves traded across the Atlantic.

thedarkchocolatedandy:

rightsided:

“One of the things that both the public and many scholars have tended to take as given is that slavery was always racial in nature – that only blacks have been slaves. But that is not true,” Davis said. “We cannot think of slavery as something that only white people did to black people.”

“We have lost the sense of how large enslavement could loom for those who lived around the Mediterranean and the threat they were under,” he said. “Slaves were still slaves, whether they are black or white, and whether they suffered in America or North Africa.”

Yeah, this is misleading.

1) This number, 1.25 mil counts for the number of White People enslaved TOTAL. The comparable number of Africans was between 10-18 million depending on the source. 

2) Europeans only accounted for the highest number of slaves for a century and a half. Their numbers were still dwarfed by Africans in the long run.

3) They type of slavery involved is incomparable. Chattel Slavery and Indentured Servitude are two different things. 

Nice try though. 

Not misleading; during the 150 year period there were more white slaves traded than black.

You seemed to have missed the whole part about:

Slaves were still slaves, whether they are black or white, and whether they suffered in America or North Africa.

And, at a guess, you did not even read the entire article, otherwise you would have seen this:

While African slaves did grueling labor on sugar and cotton plantations in the Americas, European Christian slaves were often worked just as hard and as lethally – in quarries, in heavy construction, and above all rowing the corsair galleys themselves.

Except that the article doesn’t go in depth of how the slaves were treated. 

And I’m guess that you haven’t really delved really deeply into this topic in general because there is a glaring difference between what the slavery that Europeans endured and Africans endured. 

The mainstay being that European slaves actually had the opportunity to gain their freedom. Indentured servitude came with a time limit. And not only, that, but indentured servants actually had rights that were enforced by law. 

So no, slaves were not still slaves. 

The circumstances are not the same at all. 

You and your camp need to get your facts straight and stop comparing apples to oranges. 

Indentured servitude =/= slavery

These people were taken by force, and forced to work, there was no legal agreement between the two parties. They were not indentured servants, they were slaves.

Why actually read the article, when you can simply spout hackneyed buzzwords like “indentured servants”?

In the article, Davis was speaking SPECIFICALLY about that 150-year time frame, not the total number of slaves over all of history. So that was your first failure in reading comprehension.

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for you to bring indentured servitude into this. Indentured servants entered into a consensual (though often coercive) legal contract with an “employer” (or master, owner, whatever you’d like to call it), with an established termination date at which point they would be freed. Slavery involves being taken prisoner and forced to work, with no protected legal rights or promise of future release.

You know how I could tell this article was about slavery, and not indentured servitude? I mean, besides the obvious fact that SLAVERY and SLAVES are both right there in the freaking title. Let’s pull out a few quotes:

“between 1 million and 1.25 million European Christians were captured and forced to work in North Africa from the 16th to 18th centuries.”

“Pirates (called corsairs) from cities along the Barbary Coast in north Africa – cities such as Tunis and Algiers – would raid ships in the Mediterranean and Atlantic, as well as seaside villages to capture men, women and children.”

“about 8,500 new slaves had to be captured each year. Overall, this suggests nearly a million slaves would have been taken captive during this period.”

Gosh, sorta sounds like this was an involuntary thing on the workers’ part, doesn’t it?

In conclusion: rightsided, thanks for calling attention to an article on a really thought-provoking and interesting topic. thedarkchocolatedandy, you need to learn how to read. Also, your username strikes me as incredibly stupid and possibly offensive. 


Source: rightsided

touchoftea: rightsided: touchoftea: The conversation continues as rightsided tries to justify animal cruelty If it’s good enough for these men… Then it’s good enough for man’s best friend… (Also note that this dog is happy and not traumatized. He’s also not in a kennel.) There’s a very big difference between riding in the back of a pickup truck with a person and being strapped to the roof of a car in a kennel. I’m not even going to touch the comparison with the military. Actually, I am. Just because someone chooses to put their own life on the line, does not give them the right to put an innocent life on the line. Romney should’ve strapped himself to the roof and kept the dog inside.
Pop-upView Separately

touchoftea:

rightsided:

touchoftea:

The conversation continues as rightsided tries to justify animal cruelty

If it’s good enough for these men…

Then it’s good enough for man’s best friend…

(Also note that this dog is happy and not traumatized. He’s also not in a kennel.)

There’s a very big difference between riding in the back of a pickup truck with a person and being strapped to the roof of a car in a kennel. I’m not even going to touch the comparison with the military. Actually, I am. Just because someone chooses to put their own life on the line, does not give them the right to put an innocent life on the line. Romney should’ve strapped himself to the roof and kept the dog inside.

(via ineedmymorningtea)